Elections (Increasing Turnout)

Peter Viggers: One of the advantages that the Electoral Commission sees in individual registration is that it will pick up people who are not covered at moment by the heads of households whose duty it is to register people to vote. That might be relevant to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Ann Cryer: Although I do not describe the practice as fraud, the widespread use of personal votes in very patriarchal communities disfranchises a lot of women because the head of the household will vote on behalf the women in his house. Are the hon. Gentleman and the commission aware of that practice, which means that I am afraid I do not agree with the proposal to extend the postal vote?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As he knows, the problem with prosecuting on the behalf of exploited employees is the difficulty in getting those employees to come forward. We have to work hard on that. He knows that Operation Pentameter 2, which started last October, has a focus on labour-exploited people. There have been discussions involving the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which is likely to have the ability better to recognise unscrupulous gangmasters and to be involved in identifying cases. We are taking considerable steps to tackle the issue and all suggestions will be gratefully received on that basis.

Barbara Follett: Milton Keynes racial equality council received around £50,000-worth of Government funding in 2006-07 and around £60,000 in 2007-08. That represents 28 per cent. of the total amount received by all racial equality councils in the country during those years. In addition, Milton Keynes racial equality council received a grant of £45,000 from the Commission for Racial Equality in 2006-07 and another of £42,000 in 2007-08.

Lynne Featherstone: You are right, Mr. Speaker, as always. Will the Minister assure me that the difficulties of working the problem through the Commonwealth should not stand in the way of its being done? It is right that it should be done, and we have heard from all parties that it should be done, so will the Minister confirm that view?

Theresa May: I apologise for not being present at business questions later, but I shall be attending the funeral of that redoubtable parliamentarian, the late Gwyneth Dunwoody.
	The Minister previously promised that the Government would follow the Conservative party's policy of extending the right to request flexible working to parents of all children under the age of 18. Will she guarantee to follow our policy of flexible parental leave, which would allow parents to have parental leave that they could share and give them the opportunity of taking it simultaneously?

Helen Goodman: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is aware that television proceedings and subsequent use on Members' websites are undertaken subject to a licence issued by the Speaker. The licence stipulates that material must not be hosted on a searchable website and must not be downloadable. The reason for that is to ensure that it is not re-edited or reused inappropriately for campaigning or satirical purposes.
	The hon. Lady raised the issue of mySociety's "Free our Bills" campaign and it is obvious that great strides have been taken recently in improving the parliamentary website. She is right that if our constituents can gain easier access to the progress of Bills, it will enable them to intervene as they wish. That work is ongoing. The specific proposals of mySociety, however, have some disadvantages. It wants to be able to provide explanatory material and to reorder some material, but before we went that far, we would need to look into it in much greater detail.

Draft Legislative Programme (Publication)

Harriet Harman: May I first apologise, as did the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), because I will be attending the funeral of my good friend and doughty parliamentarian, Gwyneth Dunwoody, so I will be unable to remain in my place for the conclusion of these questions. I will leave the business statement in the competent hands of the Deputy Leader of the House.
	Following the publication of last year's draft legislative programme on 11 July 2007, the Government published in November a summary of the consultation carried out and the comments received in "The Government's Draft Legislative Programme— Taking a Wider View". As Leader of the House, I contributed to the Modernisation Committee's inquiry on the draft legislative programme. That Committee reported in January 2008, and the outcomes from those exercises have informed the consultation process for this year's draft legislative programme, which will be published shortly.

Theresa May: The Leader of the House said that the draft legislative programme would be published shortly. The Modernisation Committee report of January supported the proposal that she had put forward that the draft legislative programme should be published at Easter. I note that she said that that would provide enough time for the Government to have sensible measures to put forward. Are we to read into the fact that the programme has not been published at Easter this year, that the Government have nothing sensible to say?

Nick Harvey: I am sure that the possibility of using nearby departmental facilities could be investigated. I will refer the hon. Lady's remarks about having a more general survey to the Administration Committee. A survey was conducted in 2003, which led to the conclusion that it was more convenient, particularly for members of staff, to have child care vouchers that did not have to be redeemed here at Westminster, but which could be used nearer to where they lived, such as in outer London boroughs—or, indeed, in constituencies, because Members' constituency staff are eligible for the vouchers and can redeem them in constituencies.

Hugh Bayley: I am very glad to hear that the issue may get consideration. Private Members have brought some very important legislation through the House—legislation that Governments of the day have been too frightened to introduce; one thinks of the abolition of the death penalty or the abortion law reform. Legislation on more of these difficult issues, including, perhaps, legislation to deal with the question of primogeniture, could be brought through by a private Member if more time were available. I urge the Modernisation Committee to examine my proposal seriously.

Shailesh Vara: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that information.
	During yesterday's Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister said that Wendy Alexander, the leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament, had not called for an immediate referendum on Scottish independence. However, on Tuesday evening, she was asked on Scottish television:
	"Is Gordon Brown endorsing your decision to call for a Referendum?"
	She replied, "Yes." She was asked:
	"He is endorsing it and he has told you that?"
	She again said, "Yes." They cannot both be right, so which is it?
	Today, the Health Committee published a damning report on the junior doctors recruitment crisis last year. It described the Government's handling as "inept". May I suggest a topical debate on the Government's treatment of junior doctors?
	During Prime Minister's questions yesterday, the Prime Minister claimed that the Government had lifted 1 million children out of poverty. However, during Cabinet Office questions earlier, the Minister for the Cabinet Office cited the figure as "600,000". Where did the Prime Minister's extra 400,000 come from? May we have a statement from the Prime Minister to explain his exaggeration?
	Sir Ian Blair has admitted that when giving evidence to MPs in support of 42-day detention without trial he gave misleading figures regarding the number of serious terrorist plots disrupted by the police since 2005. This is a matter of grave concern, as is the fact that the Government have asked both Sir Ian and Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick to argue the case for 42 days. Politicising the police in that way is unacceptable. It smacks of desperation and further undermines the Government's position. We need a statement urgently from the Home Secretary on her manipulation of the police for political gain.
	Last week, the Government chose the day before the local elections to slip out a written statement on the backlog of inquests into the deaths of our brave servicemen and women. It confirmed that, despite numerous assurances from the Leader of the House and others, the Government have failed to reduce the backlog significantly. This issue deserves an oral statement from the Secretary of State for Justice.
	The Government have spent more than £1 billion on trying to tackle truancy. But data released this week show that more than 40,000 children are missing at least two days of school every week—an increase on the previous term. So, if the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families can find the time to break away from his usual plotting and scheming, perhaps he would like to make a statement explaining why the Government are failing to tackle truancy.
	The Government continue to dither instead of taking decisive action, they are incapable of giving straight answers to straight questions, and their Back Benchers are in open revolt over their policies—

Keith Vaz: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1488?
	 [That this House welcomes the proposal by the Russian Government not to require British fans to apply for visas when they visit Russia for the Champions League Final between Chelsea and Manchester United on 21st May 2008; notes that this is an excellent way to celebrate the positive spirit of competitive football; recognises that the British Government is unable to waive visa restrictions in return in respect of the UEFA Cup Final in Manchester between Zenit St Petersburg and Glasgow Rangers on 14th May; and calls on the Government to waive visa fees as a goodwill gesture.]
	Will my hon. Friend arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make an urgent statement in response to the Russian Government's proposal to waive visa fees for British fans who travel to Moscow for the European cup final? Would it not be appropriate for the British Government to reciprocate by waiving fees for the Russian fans who will attend the UEFA cup final in Manchester. Unfortunately, Leicester City is in neither of the finals.

Douglas Alexander: I begin by apologising unreservedly to the House for my delayed arrival and for the delay in making the statement. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to inform it on the response being taken to cyclone Nargis.
	The cyclone hit Burma on the night of 2 May. It has had a devastating impact on the people of Burma: at least 22,000 people have been killed. Unfortunately, we expect this number to rise very significantly in the coming days. Some estimates already range as high as 100,000 dead. At least 42,000 are still missing. The Government estimate that 90 to 95 per cent. of buildings have been destroyed in the low-lying delta region. One million are estimated to be homeless and 1.5 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance in the delta region and around Rangoon. Preliminary assessments indicate that the most urgent needs are for shelter, food and clean water.
	The full scale of the disaster will become apparent only over the next few days, as relief teams are able to reach remote communities in cyclone-affected areas. Assessments by the UN and other international agencies have been delayed by difficulties with communications and access. The situation is becoming increasingly perilous, with relief capacity inside the country already severely stretched. There is, of course, an ongoing crisis for the Burmese people, and we are working hard with others in the international community to do all we can for the relief effort.
	We should not underestimate the challenge of the relief effort in Burma. The cyclone struck five states and divisions of Burma: Rangoon, Irrawaddy, Bago, Mon and Kayin. Damaged infrastructure and communications are posing major logistical problems for relief operations. Access to some of the worst affected areas is extremely difficult and will hamper relief distribution. Much of the affected region is accessible only by boat, and many of the boats in that region were damaged or destroyed by the cyclone. It is therefore vital that aid workers get access to areas affected by the cyclone to help to co-ordinate the emergency response and deliver aid to those in need.
	We are currently receiving mixed signals on the question of access to Burma for international staff. There were widespread media reports only this morning of UN flights being unable to land in Burma. The latest information available to my Department suggests that the first flight, with 7 tonnes of high-energy biscuits, landed around 0730 on 8 May, UK time, and the biscuits are being unloaded.
	It is too soon to have a view on the unloading and customs processes, but the World Food Programme is expected to report back to us early this afternoon. The second flight, with 18 tonnes of high-energy biscuits, has landing rights in Yangon and is currently in Dhaka. It is expected to depart today. Delays to these first two flights were due to delays in obtaining clearances. The third flight will leave Dubai today with a range of items; it too has clearance to land in Burma. The fourth flight, due to leave from Italy, is on hold while a view is taken on the capacity of the airport equipment and staff in Burma. The UN does not want to overwhelm this capacity. The first Red Cross and NGO flights will seek access shortly. We do not yet know whether the Burmese Government will allow free access for international agencies to the areas affected by the disaster.
	We, as well as the UN and the NGOs, are continuing to urge the Burmese authorities to ensure rapid access for international humanitarian staff to Burma, and for access, in turn, to the worst affected areas within Burma in order to manage our assistance effectively. Representations are being made at both multilateral and bilateral levels. I have spoken personally to John Holmes, the UN's emergency relief co-ordinator, who is also appealing to the Burmese authorities to allow UN agencies and international workers access. I have spoken to our ambassador in Rangoon, Mark Canning, who raised the issue of access with both the senior general and the Burmese Prime Minister. I have also spoken to the Burmese ambassador here in London to urge him to facilitate rapid access for international humanitarian staff.
	Alongside working to secure access to the affected areas, the UK has made an immediate contribution of up to £5 million—the largest single contribution made by any one country—to help the UN, the Red Cross and the NGOs meet urgent humanitarian needs, including shelter and access to clean water, and food and other emergency items. We have readied stockpiles of emergency supplies such as tents, water containers, blankets, and plastic sheets, and sourced additional logistic equipment and relief supplies to be delivered by the same agencies. We are working closely with agencies on the ground to determine exact needs, and we expect to be able to allocate these funds in the coming days as needs and access become clearer. The UN flash appeal is expected by tomorrow. Yesterday, 7 May, I met UK-based NGOs to discuss potential DFID support. We are ready to deploy an emergency field team to help co-ordinate our assessment and response to the disaster as soon as visas can be obtained from the Burmese Government.
	The UN humanitarian co-ordinator will meet the Burmese authorities later today to provide an overview of international commitments and to discuss the progress of the response. Already, more than $20 million has been pledged by donors to the relief effort. In addition, the UN has announced that a minimum of $10 million will be released from the central emergency relief fund, to which the UK is the largest contributor. The Red Cross and NGOs that have a presence in Burma, including World Vision, Save the Children and Médecins sans Frontières, are undertaking emergency assessments and have begun distributing basic emergency items such as food and water supplies. Co-ordination mechanisms are in place between the UN, NGOs and donors on the ground.
	Domestically, the Government of Burma have pledged some $4.5 million for relief and have established an emergency committee headed by the Burmese Prime Minister. The Burmese Government have reiterated their readiness to accept international assistance, but they are only just starting to allow in UN aid. The challenges of the relief effort would daunt even the most developed country, and it is important that the Burmese Government accept all offers of international assistance offered to them.
	As the House will be aware, as well as our initial pledge of up to £5 million for the relief effort, the UK is one of the few countries providing long-term humanitarian assistance to the people of Burma. In October 2007, the UK announced that it would double its aid for the poorest people in Burma from £9 million per year to £18 million per year in 2010. Our support is delivered in accordance with the European common position—either through the UN or other reputable NGOs; none of it goes through the central Government.
	This is a very grave crisis, on a scale not seen since the tsunami of 2004. I want to assure the House that the British Government will continue to work to bring assistance and relief to the suffering people of Burma.

Douglas Alexander: Of course I am happy to give the final undertaking sought by the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the House is updated as the situation develops on the ground.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks about the staff of my Department. I match him in those remarks; if anything, I would say that they are quite literally the best in the world, not just among the best. I have spoken to Rurik Marsden, our head of office in Rangoon, in recent days. He is playing a key role in helping to co-ordinate our efforts on the ground along with his staff in that office.
	I am also grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his remarks yesterday at Prime Minister's questions, when he made clear the consensus that reaches across the House in support of the British and international effort to bring an end to the humanitarian suffering of the people of Burma. It is always helpful in these circumstances where there is genuine cross-party consensus in support of a humanitarian effort.
	I also join the hon. Gentleman in recognising the contribution made by British-based NGOs. There are already a number of teams on the ground in Burma who are taking forward important work.
	Let me turn to the other specific points made by the hon. Gentleman. I raised the issue of visa restrictions directly with the Burmese Government ambassador here in London. I urged him to ensure the expeditious passage of visa applications that are presently with the embassy, including those from DFID assessment staff, and made clear that, given the number of applications that will be received from the international community, there was a strong case for a visa waiver. He undertook to reflect that in his correspondence with his Government.
	I also raised with the ambassador the concerns expressed to me at a meeting that I held with the British-based NGOs regarding access in-country. Effectively, an in-country domestic visa regime has been imposed in Burma for some time. Again I urged him to consider ensuring not simply that there is expeditious passage into Burma for humanitarian workers, but that there is free and ready access to those areas affected by the cyclone for workers within the country. Clearly, whether the Burmese Government deliver on the requests that I and others have made will be tested in the days to come, but that is a matter on which the House can be updated in due course.
	We have raised the matter directly with the ambassador here, and with Mark Canning, our ambassador in Rangoon. Representations have been made both to the senior general and to the Burmese Prime Minister. We have also activated our Foreign Office posts across the Association of South East Asian Nations region to ensure that those regional partners, who often can exert influence within Burma, are made aware of the points that the British Government have raised on free access for the humanitarian effort.
	I should inform the House that the best advice that we have in DFID is that a number of ASEAN nations have visa-free access to Burma. One of the conversations that we have had with British and international NGOs has been about encouraging them to consider whether they have staff based in the ASEAN countries who can readily access the country while visa applications are processed for others.
	On the hon. Gentleman's point about relief flights, I have updated the House as to the best information that we have. It is encouraging, for example, that the recent World Food Programme flight that arrived saw its supplies unloaded today to the WFP warehouse, given that there were concerns that the army would commandeer the relief as it came in. On his specific point about contact with the Chinese Government, we have already initiated, through the UK mission to the UN, a discussion with the Chinese delegation to the UN, making them aware of the points that we have discussed here.
	The issue of duties being levied on incoming humanitarian supplies has been raised and my understanding is that the Government of Burma have made it clear that duty will not be levied on humanitarian aid and assistance. Again, that will be tested in the days to come and we shall see whether that undertaking is delivered on.
	On the hon. Gentleman's final two points, we have no indications of difficulty affecting Aung San Suu Kyi in terms of her residence. On gift aid, we will assess the requirement for any future changes to the Government's position in light of the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal that has been launched.

Douglas Alexander: Let me seek to address each of those points in turn. First, my understanding is that there are now indications that the constitutional referendum will be suspended in the areas affected by the cyclone, but if I am circumspect in my remarks today, it is merely to echo the sentiment that the hon. Lady suggested, which is that our sole priority today needs to be to get humanitarian aid to those directly affected by the cyclone. It was Condoleezza Rice, the United States Secretary of State, who said that this is not about politics but about getting humanitarian aid to those who require it. As the hon. Lady indicated, that needs to be the overriding sentiment of our remarks today.
	There are and have been plenty of other opportunities for the House to discuss political developments within Burma. It is of course a matter to which we will all return, but if I am circumspect today, it reflects our determination to ensure that the message that we send to the Burmese regime is clear: the first priority today needs to be to ensure access to the international relief effort that is so urgently required on the ground.
	I can assure the hon. Lady that the £5 million is additional to the programme for Burma. Is it under review in the light of the developing situation on the ground? I can give her that assurance; yes, it is under review. On the extent to which we are co-ordinating our efforts, there are established mechanisms. We have been in touch with ECHO, the co-ordination mechanism for humanitarian assistance at a European level, and with John Holmes, the UN emergency co-ordinator.
	In relation to work being taken forward with ASEAN countries, we have been in touch with each of our Foreign Office posts in the ASEAN countries and they are in dialogue with the respective Governments.
	On UK nationals, I, too, have seen some of the media reports indicating the number of people who have not yet been contacted. I would not wish to heighten the anxiety of anybody who may have relatives whom they know are in Burma. Mark Canning was clear that we had not yet received any indications that individual British citizens were in difficulty, of which we were aware very quickly following the tsunami. He emphasised that the British population in Burma—people travelling in Burma as well as those resident there—is relatively small but widely dispersed across a country that has limited communications. It will therefore inevitably take time to account for even the limited British population there, but I can give the House an assurance that that work is under way from our post in Rangoon.
	On how best to provide information to anyone who is concerned about relatives, I would make a plea for them to contact the Foreign Office. Their first port of call should be the Foreign Office website. Historically, people have come to trust its advice to travellers, and I undertake to raise this matter with my ministerial colleagues in the Foreign Office following this statement.
	On the question of how our constituents can reflect the generosity of spirit that was so evident at the time of the tsunami in relation to this particular disaster, the Disasters Emergency Committee has launched an appeal today. I understand that there are adverts for the appeal in British newspapers today, and it is anticipated that there will be broadcast advertisements this evening. So there will be publicity on how members of the public can register their support for the efforts being made by the British Government and British NGOs.

Denis MacShane: Is it not clear that tens, possibly scores, of thousands of Burmese have died in the past two days because of the failure of the Burmese dictatorship to allow aid workers in and to allow the navies of the world to go and help? This issue must be raised at the highest level. When such things happen in Darfur or Rwanda, we call it genocide, and that is what I accuse the Burmese junta of organising this week. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to support the French Government at the United Nations in invoking the right-to-protect article of the UN charter, which states that when a country ceases to protect its citizens, the international community has a right and a duty to intervene? Will he also make that clear to China, Thailand and India?

Chris Bryant: I am sure that the Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that when people are starving, have no access to clean water and have lost their homes, the most important thing is to get support to them so that they can achieve a decent life. However, there is a political reality involved. Surely it would be wrong if a single penny of British international development money went into the pockets of the army or into supporting a corrupt and despicable regime that has killed many people. Should we not adhere to the vital principle that the money should go directly into ensuring that people have the opportunity to live, rather than ensuring that a general has the opportunity to stay in his chauffeur-driven car?

Philip Hollobone: Is not the context of this debate that although the United Kingdom has, pro rata, the best armed forces in the world and we regularly punch above our weight in international conflicts, all too often our allies, who should know better, do not give us, and the United States, the support that we deserve?

Des Browne: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for, in an early intervention, putting his finger on an issue that we need to address in the context of this debate. The simplistic answer is to agree with him, but it is not as simple as that, as he knows. The ability of our allies to punch their weight or to step up to the plate, to use two of the phrases that are constantly used in this debate, is a function of political will, capability and capacity. In the whole history of this debate, and in the comparatively short period for which I have been Secretary of State for Defence, I have seen dramatic improvements in that regard. Certain countries have gone from being renowned for being able to contribute to peacekeeping missions to being war-fighting countries that are now able to deploy their forces with effect into very difficult circumstances. Many countries punch above their weight in relation to the size of their armed forces. Other countries have used their engagement in NATO, particularly in Afghanistan, to transform their armed forces in the way that I have described.
	Without going into the detail of all those countries—there are many good examples—I would say two things about what is often the litmus test: namely, which NATO countries are in the difficult parts of Afghanistan. First, when NATO met in Riga last year there were, if I recollect correctly, about 32,000 ISAF—international security assistance force—forces there, predominantly NATO forces. When it met in Bucharest, there were 47,000. That is a significant increase, and there have been additional forces since then. Secondly, of the countries that are members of NATO, whether newer or longstanding members, slightly less than 50 per cent. are represented in the south or the east of the country. Those two broad statistics generally indicate the direction of travel. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is right, but our allies are aware of it and they are making progress.

Tobias Ellwood: The 2nd Battalion, The Rifles is the battalion with which I served and I hope that the House wishes it well in its deployment to Kosovo. However, the regiment has just returned from Iraq, so I ask the Secretary of State: has enough time has been given for the battalion to re-engage with families and to retrain before it takes up that other commitment? The biggest question Britons will be asking is why it is yet again the British who are stepping forward when there is so much pressure on our armed services and while the rest of Europe seems to turn a blind eye to the problems in Kosovo.

Des Browne: Broadly, although the situation in Kosovo has to be nurtured and encouraged step by step, most people think that progress is being made. Progress is evident throughout the Balkans.
	First, we should not see the deployment of the operational reserve force, which is being done after careful consideration by the commander of NATO forces as to the appearance he needs to present to give security on the ground, as an indication of regression. It is an indication of progress. Secondly, we have been committed for some time, with other countries, to provide the ORF to Kosovo—I think that the commitment goes back to 2003, but if I am incorrect, I shall correct the record. We have been on standby, as it were, at various stages of readiness to take action along with other countries. Other countries have fulfilled this role. We are at the highest state of readiness at this time, and it is right that we should fulfil our commitment.
	We are not expected to do something in Kosovo that others are not prepared to do, as some have suggested. I repeat the point I made earlier: there are 18,000 troops from countries throughout the world in Kosovo. We are able to see the progress that is taking place because of that level of commitment. If the commanders who achieved that, working with others and the broader international community, suggest that something needs to be done and make a request, it is entirely appropriate that we respond. Of course, we need to take into account the effect on our troops and their families. We would not send the battalion if we felt we were affecting its ability to recuperate from operational deployment to Iraq or its ability to retrain and be ready for further deployment, should that be necessary in the future.

Des Browne: I am always happy to accept congratulations for the Government, no matter where they come from— [ Laughter. ] I should be more gracious to the hon. Gentleman; he made a very good point. I am reluctant to accede to it, however, lest that be interpreted to suggest that I think that the borders of Europe define where the borders of our security lie. The reality of the modern world suggests that the front line of our security can be quite far away from the borders of Europe, or indeed our own borders. His point is absolutely correct, however, and instead of interpreting every move, particularly a military move, as a function of failure, we should understand that it is our ability to change the levels of our forces as we have in the Balkans, and to use them to give a degree of security and stability to allow complementary civil work to take place, that has resulted in the painstaking progress made over more than a decade to bring that region its current stability. It also allows us to welcome the component elements of the former Yugoslavia into not only Europe but a Euro-Atlantic relationship, which reinforces what we have achieved. Indeed, we should congratulate ourselves—hon. Members of all parties, this country and our wider alliances—on our achievements, because it did not look as though we could piece things back together in that way.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend puts her finger on one of the key aims of Veterans day—a day of appropriate celebration, to which we all look forward. One of the potential benefits of veterans' badges is that young people and communities can identify by that simple method people who have experience of the armed forces and who can engage with young people. I know from my constituency that young people are hungry to hear about such experiences, which many will never have, but greatly admire. They can learn much from them. On many occasions, I have seen veterans, especially those of service from many years ago, keep young children in raptures with the stories of their experiences. It is a wonderful part of life. I do not wish to be trite, but passing on such oral history from generation to generation is part of being British.
	In Afghanistan, our forces are working to ensure that that benighted country never again becomes a base for international terrorists. The events of September 2001 demonstrate clearly that, in a global world, the counter-terrorist front line is often far from our domestic borders. We must and will maintain deployable, expeditionary forces able to meet that challenge, wherever it confronts us.
	I regularly visit our troops in Afghanistan. On each occasion, I am highly impressed by their professional conduct and high morale in extremely challenging conditions. That reaction is common among all those who visit them, and I know that many hon. Members have done so, for which I commend them.

Des Browne: The matter needs to be looked into quickly. I will take it away and get back to my hon. Friend. I have not been challenged about that, but I think that I need to look into it.
	As well as being impressed by the professionalism and morale of our servicemen and women in Afghanistan, I have also seen for myself the positive impact that our troops are making there. That applies not only to them but to others deployed in a supporting civilian capacity, including civil servants from the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and others. They are collectively making a positive impact through creating a secure environment so that Afghans can go about their lives as they wish.
	I have listened to our troops tell me that the equipment that they now use is the best that they have ever had. That is their opinion and it is also mine. In the last financial year alone, we delivered equipment worth more than £4.5 billion to the armed forces. Better personal protection and weapons, new armour, new vehicles, new surveillance capabilities and more helicopters have not gone unnoticed by those on the front line. I am sure that all hon. Members know about the quotation from the current brigadier in Afghanistan about the equipment there. Our procurement programme is now paying substantial dividends.
	We, along with the international community, must continue to support the Afghan Government, and we are doing that.

Des Browne: I would not rely entirely on the statistics published by the Taliban on the size of the poppy crop when they were running the country. The Taliban held out to the public the view that they were opposed to the production of opium, but there is clear evidence that they were controlling it, while telling the international community—and even persuading some members—the opposite. The Taliban's current behaviour, along with that of other insurgents in Afghanistan, does not suggest to me that they are a reliable source of information on the state of production at that time.
	There is no doubt that the growth of poppies and the production of opium and their relationship with the insurgency are serious and important issues. Significant progress has been made in making large parts of Afghanistan poppy-free. That is independently assessed and reported on by the United Nations. There has been a concentration of poppy growth in the areas that are least secure, which happen to be the most difficult areas—the parts of the country where, by and large, there has never been any governance. Those parts also happen to be predominantly in the southern part of the country, where we and others are trying to engage the Taliban and other insurgents.
	There is no doubt that the Taliban and other insurgents are taking advantage of the security situation in those areas to exploit their hold over the local population through the growth of poppies. Progress is increasingly being made in delivering security, but we need to move beyond that, to the key to reducing the growth of poppies, which is to provide alternative livelihoods. That is not just about saying—as we can, of course—that almost anything will grow in the Helmand river valley during the growing season, for example, when that soil and water are put together; it is about providing a crop that will produce cash. In order to do that, the broad infrastructure needs to be built, so that people can get crops to the market and sell them, and make a living. That is what we are concentrating on, and I shall come to some statistics on the progress being made later.
	I am eternally grateful for the support that that incremental approach, with all the pillars of the anti-narcotics strategy that we have signed up to, consistently receives in the House. There is no simple solution to the problem. Aerial spraying will not deal with it, and neither will buying the poppy crop from the farmers. I notice that on his blog the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) recently expressed a remarkably unqualified degree of support for buying the poppy crop in Afghanistan—if I have misinterpreted him, he can no doubt deal with that. I do not believe that to be the solution, nor do I understand it to be the Opposition's policy—perhaps the hon. Gentleman was just expressing a personal view.
	However, that policy is not the solution for the simple reason that the country just does not have the infrastructure to ensure that it targets the sole poppy crop. I am certain that if we offered to buy the poppy crop, as many people encourage us to do, the poppy crop would double. There would be no reason for the narcotics dealers to give up trying to get farmers to grow more. Despite the size of the crop, farmers currently grow poppies on only about 4 per cent. of the arable land in Afghanistan, so there is plenty of room for expansion. We just need to work painstakingly through the problem. There are some indications, with the way commodity prices are going, that the growing of wheat, for example, is becoming increasingly attractive to Afghan farmers, for obvious reasons. We need to work on the problem and make progress across the international community, but we also need to make progress on the complementary aspects, including the criminal justice system, by getting some of the big boys before the courts and into jail.

Des Browne: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, but with respect, there is a balance to be struck. Having growing communities depend on garrisons is not sustainable either. That of course does not undermine his point about bottled water, which is an impressive point. I shall make inquiries off the back of that point, and I am certain that I shall uncover a mixed picture. I know that our significant development in Camp Bastion puts a large amount of money into the local community because, apart from anything else, we employ local people. I will try to find out the picture across ISAF; I will write to the hon. Gentleman and put my response into the Library so that all Members can access the information.
	As I was saying, we, along with the international community, must continue to support the Afghan Government, which is what we are doing. That is why all 40 troop-contributing nations to ISAF reaffirmed in Bucharest their commitment to Afghanistan, and why many—notably the French, who will deploy an additional battalion to regional command east—made additional contributions of troops. The United States have deployed a marine expeditionary unit of 3,000 personnel to southern Afghanistan. They are working closely and effectively with UK forces, complementing our efforts and allowing us to spread the writ of the Afghan Government further and faster.
	We fully support the appointment of Kai Eide, the new special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, to facilitate better co-ordination of the international community's efforts in Afghanistan. There is already evidence that he is having a significant effect. His appointment will ensure that we are able to optimise the delivery of reconstruction and development into the security space that is being created by the courage and professionalism of our armed forces. That will be the decisive act in our mission in Afghanistan.
	Ultimately, this will be delivered through the Afghan national development strategy, which is the vision of the Afghan Government themselves to improve conditions for their people. I look forward to the Paris conference, to be held in June this year, where members of the international community will come together again to refine and co-ordinate the implementation of the whole strategy. The road ahead will not always be easy—there will be setbacks—but there is mounting evidence that we are making real progress. Security is taking root in many areas and basic services are improving. The Taliban, who once boasted that they would drive ISAF out of Afghanistan, have themselves been driven from large areas of the country.
	About 60 per cent. of Afghanistan is relatively stable, with no or very few security incidents. Since 1 January, 91 per cent. of insurgent activity has originated in just 8 per cent. of Afghanistan's districts. ISAF has built over 4,000 km of roads, when only 50 km existed in 2001. In 2001, 8 per cent. of Afghans had access to health care, whereas that figure is 80 per cent. today. The Taliban offer Afghanistan neither security nor development. That is why, in a recent BBC poll, the Taliban had the active support of just over 4 per cent. of the population of Afghanistan. It also explains why increasing numbers of former Taliban are choosing to oppose the Taliban and support the Afghan Government. Nowhere is that better exemplified than in Helmand, where the town of Musa Qala has been transformed from a battleground to a place where there are thriving markets and a popular school, and people live their normal lives.
	Afghan security forces are playing an increasing role in their own security. There are now more than 50,000 troops in the Afghan national army, and the first battalion to become independently operational is now fully trained and equipped. There are also more than 76,000 officers in the police force. In the light of those expanding Afghan forces, the Afghan Government have announced their intention to take over responsibility for security in Kabul by August this year. That will be a key step on the way to achieving our ambition to make Afghanistan a stable state with secure borders.
	Such security and stability are equally our ambition for Iraq.

Des Browne: I think that I have taken enough interventions. The point I am making is that the militia pretended that they were fighting for the people of Basra, but the people of Basra now know that they were fighting against them.
	However, such progress does not mean that we can simply declare success now and bring our troops home. Although real progress has clearly been made, it remains fragile, and needs to be consolidated and sustained. Lasting stability requires the Iraqis to make political and, above all, economic progress. The biggest single worry for the people of Basra is not security, but unemployment. Progress is being made: only the day before yesterday, a new market was opened in the Jameat area of Basra, built as a joint British-Iraqi venture, while last week I attended a reception for the Basra development commission at No. 10 Downing street, which brought together the captains of British industry, and they showed a great interest in investing in southern Iraq. We have been following up on that with some success, but all of this will take time to fix.
	This—successful—operation has shown that the Iraqis still have some way to go before they can operate without our assistance. They remain reliant upon us and our coalition partners for advice on how to plan and execute their operations, as well as for logistic and medical support and for specialist capabilities, such as fast jets, helicopters and surveillance. So our forces still have an extremely important job to do. In particular, our focus is on the following: completing the training of the 14th Division of the Iraqi army, which will provide the backbone for the long-term Iraqi security presence in Basra; taking forward the development of the Iraqi navy; and setting Basra's international airport on the path towards international accreditation. For the time being, the number of British forces in southern Iraq will remain broadly unchanged, while our military commanders continue to analyse the force levels we need to deliver these tasks in the changed and changing environment, but we will continue to reduce our force levels as conditions allow, and we will, of course, keep the House informed of our plans.
	We look to Iraq's future with growing optimism, but we also recognise the real challenges that remain. Iraq's neighbours have their part to play, alongside UK forces and our coalition partners, in helping Iraq move to a stable and prosperous future—and it is as much in their interests that that future be stable and prosperous as it is in the Iraqis' interests. Syria should continue to clamp down on the movement of foreign fighters, and Iran must stop arming those who threaten the democratically elected Government of Iraq and the coalition forces. We want to see all Iraq's neighbours, including Iran, playing a responsible role in the region.
	In Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq we are seeing slow but steady change towards states that are democratic and accountable, and that respect the rule of law and protect all their citizens, and change away from states that support terrorism or ethnic violence, or defy the legitimate will of the international community.
	Having focused on current operations, I should now turn to future threats. It is the prime responsibility of any Government to ensure, as far as possible, the safety and security of their people, and that responsibility is at the core of Government policy. We do not believe that any state with ballistic missiles currently has the intent to target them against the UK mainland, but we know that ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction are proliferating among states of concern. The pace of that proliferation, as well as the intentions of the states developing those capabilities, is hard to gauge. However, we do know that intentions can quickly change, and we must be ready to respond to those changes.
	At Bucharest, NATO again clearly set out its position on ballistic missile defence:
	"Ballistic missile proliferation poses an increasing threat to Allies' forces, territory and populations. Missile defence forms part of a broader response to counter this threat."
	Therefore, this is not just a US-UK issue, or a US issue with a number of other allies. This is, and has long been, a NATO issue.
	From the public discussion paper we issued in December 2002, we have been very open about the assumptions and reasoning behind our policy on ballistic missile defence. As we have said many times before, the UK Government have no plans independently to acquire ballistic missile defence assets, nor do we have existing plans to host US ballistic missile interceptor sites in the UK. Nor are we engaged in any secret discussions with the US on these issues, as the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) would have us all believe. We already contribute to the US system, through the early warning radar information provided by RAF Fylingdales and by allowing the satellite data routed through RAF Menwith Hill to be used in the BMD system, and we also have close co-operative arrangements with it on technology programmes. When I announced to the House last July that the upgrade to the radar at RAF Fylingdales was complete, I noted:
	"There is no change to the existing UK-US mission for the radar and the station remains under full UK command."—[ Official Report, 21 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 71WS.]
	There have been accusations that the Government slipped out the announcement on RAF Menwith Hill just prior to the recess. That was not the case. After consulting with the Cabinet on a US request to use the satellite downlink at the station for BMD purposes, I replied to the US Defence Secretary on 17 July, and the announcement on 25 July was both timely and proper.
	We would be foolish not to keep a vigilant eye on the world and on changes in the strategic threat. If in the future we decide that the acquisition of such technology becomes essential to the security of the United Kingdom, we will re-examine the position. However, such a re-examination would not come from a desire to follow blindly the defence policy of any other nation, but from a recognition of our need to provide for our own national security against emerging threats. We cannot delay our planning and consideration of this issue until the strategic environment is such that a ballistic missile defence capability becomes a necessity. In terms of such highly complex systems, many years of development are required to produce something that is feasible and credible. If there is a need to take further steps on participation in missile defence, the Government will—as they have done consistently in the past—present those propositions to the House and have the necessary discussions, but we would only seek to do this when there are proposals or propositions to be made that go beyond the principles agreed with Parliament in 2003, and at present there are none.
	I hope that that—brief—contribution makes the Government position clear, and that now the Liberal Democrats and their leadership will, instead of constantly suggesting that they will have to drag us to the Dispatch Box to debate this matter, engage in the discussion and tell us what their party's position is in relation to this essential part of the security of this country and of our NATO allies, almost every one of which is signed up to exploring the potential of this form of defence.
	Finally, I must pay tribute to those who make the UK's defence policies a reality. As I speak, British forces are making a huge contribution to international security—a contribution of great cost to some, but of great benefit to many. The men and women of the British armed forces prove themselves on a daily basis to be of the highest calibre. In Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, British military personnel are demonstrating once again that they are world-class professionals. But their service is not without sacrifice. Families up and down the UK know only too well what an enormous cost those in the armed forces can—and do—pay. I owe them—and this House and the nation owe them—a huge debt of gratitude. We live in a safer place because of their brave and dedicated service. In recognition of the huge amount they do for us, it is absolutely right that we continue to assess and improve our support to them, both at home and on operations. The personnel Command Paper, the national recognition study and our review of many support policies are undertaken in exactly that light.
	I have no doubt the whole House will join me in thanking every member of the armed forces for their hard work in defending the UK and its interests. I commend their work to the House.

Liam Fox: Since the previous defence in the world debate, 95 British service members have made the ultimate sacrifice and have not come home from Iraq or Afghanistan. They died, as many of their predecessors did, making Britain safer and giving a better life to citizens of countries that enjoy far fewer benefits than us. This House should never forget that.
	I wish quickly to recognise an important day in our nation's history. Some 63 years ago today, Winston Churchill announced to the House that the sacrifices of millions had finally led to the end of hostilities in Europe, saying:
	"The German war, Mr. Speaker, is therefore at an end."—[ Official Report, 8 May 1945; Vol. 410, c. 1868.]
	The declaration of Victory in Europe day brought to a close six years of total war in Europe. Of course, that in turn led to the bipolar cold war, the rise of NATO, the creation of what we know today as the European Union and, 63 years later, the interdependent. globalised world that we face today.
	Since the proclamation of VE day on 8 May 1945, the world's strategic environment has greatly changed. We now live in a truly global economy—a world where Britain's economic and security interests are so interlinked into a larger global interdependent network that we have an unavoidable shared set of interests with a multitude of actors in all parts of the globe. We also face the unavoidable importation of strategic risk. As recent events have shown, instability in one corner of the globe will quickly affect everyone. In the current instance, the root of the instability lies in the American credit market, but it could just as easily lie in an energy security crisis in Japan or China, or in some, as yet, undefined problem.
	That interdependence has major implications for how we think about and organise our national security structures. The luxury—although that is perhaps not how we saw it then—of the bipolar world of the cold war allowed us to set a clear direction for our national security. The unpredictability that we currently face forces us simultaneously to be both reactive and proactive, and to adapt to ever changing challenges.
	Conservatives welcome this debate, and I wish to raise a number of issues: the situation in Iraq, and Iran's involvement there; the threats that we continue to face in Afghanistan; energy security, the new scramble for the Arctic and the potential threats posed by a resurgent Russia; the need to deal with asymmetric threats; and the need to maintain the primacy of NATO and to ensure its political and military flexibility to deal with changing threats.
	Let me begin with the situation in Iraq, where there are grounds for optimism on a number of fronts. First, the American surge under General Petraeus seems to be delivering tangible improvements in security. Like the Secretary of State, I was fortunate enough last week to spend some time with both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, both of whom I found to be impressive and sincere. There is also cause for optimism now that Prime Minister al-Maliki has taken on the militias in Basra. There is a tendency in this country to see the whole conflict in Iraq through a religious prism of a Sunni-Shi'a conflict, but there is also a strong nationalist tradition in Iraq, and the willingness of its Government to tackle the often Iranian-supported militias seems to have had the effect, at least in part, of uniting the Kurds and Sunnis behind the Prime Minister and of convincing the population in the south that they have not been abandoned. The Prime Minister's campaign against the militias seems to have been genuine and sustained, even if perhaps it was, in parts, inadequately planned and required British and American support. Thankfully, it seems to have had some success, but in the future the Iraqi Government will need fully to involve coalition planners, and to do so in a more timely fashion.

Liam Fox: If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I shall come to exactly that issue towards the end of my speech.
	Some 4,000 British troops remain in Iraq. Some of our forces are embedded in, fighting with and mentoring the Iraqi security forces, enabling them to take eventual control of their own security affairs. Those on the ground argue that British troops are playing an important role, and that this is no time to be talking about withdrawing them from Iraq. We should listen to those voices, but the Government need to explain continuously to the British public, with clarity, exactly how they see the role of British troops developing and how the overwatch operation will change over time. In particular, there needs to be an honest appraisal of the risks posed to our troops, directly and indirectly, from Iran.
	General Petraeus has been openly critical of Iran's involvement in Iraq, and two weeks ago, Admiral Mike Mullen, the US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, blamed Iran for its
	"increasingly lethal and malign influence"
	in Iraq. He went on to say that recent operations in Basra had revealed
	"just how much and how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability".
	That is an important matter. The Secretary of State has all but said that Iranian involvement has led directly to the deaths of British troops in Iraq, but we need to hear more about what is being done by British forces and at the diplomatic level to counter the threat that Iran poses to Iraqi stability. The hard-won gains of emerging democratic authority, improving stability, and the sacrifices made by coalition troops and the Iraqi people cannot be allowed to be put in jeopardy by the actions of the Iranian regime.
	I would like to turn, as the Secretary of State did, to another part of the world that is a little closer to home. Many pages of European history have been written in the Balkans, which have always been vital to Europe's geo-strategic interests, and there has been no shortage of armed conflict over its territory over the centuries. The images of the wars being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan mean that it is easy wrongly to assume that peacekeeping in Kosovo will be a more straightforward affair. Let us make no mistake, regardless of how benign things may appear in Kosovo, our troops there will still be at risk. That is why we found it extremely regrettable that we were not given an oral statement on the deployment of our forces there last week. I am pleased that some of the questions that we subsequently asked were answered by the Secretary of State today, although some remain.
	In his written statement, the Secretary of State said that the troops would be deployed "until 30 June". In his letter to me, he said that this "initial deployment" would be "reviewed with NATO" at the end of June. Exactly what does that mean? What are the chances that British troops will be in Kosovo beyond the end of June? This Government have a track record of raising expectations that troops will return only to dash them later. The House would expect to be given some clarity about why it was termed an "initial deployment" and exactly what "reviewed with NATO" will mean. Perhaps the Minister for the Armed Forces will deal with that question directly in his speech.
	I was interested to hear that what happens in Kosovo will, again, be paid for entirely from the reserve, but that raises a basic issue that comes up again and again. Not only are we carrying the military burden through our troops, but our taxpayers are carrying the full burden, because there is no proper financial burden-sharing of what NATO does. As the Leader of the Opposition said recently, there needs to be far better financial burden-sharing in both NATO and the EU. Again, I hope that the Minister for the Armed Forces will answer some of those points.
	I understand that in addition to sourcing the requirement for the operational reserve force that is now being deployed to Kosovo, the 2nd Battalion, The Rifles was also serving as our spearhead land element. Which unit will take over while that one is in Kosovo? Do we have the capability to react to the unexpected? Let me paint a picture of the wider political situation facing us in Kosovo. Serbia is trying to include northern parts of Kosovo in its general election later this month; there are unconfirmed reports that Serbia is massing troops and munitions along its border with Kosovo; and there are media accounts of tension along sections of the Macedonia-Kosovo border. Our troops are going to face many risks in a volatile environment and very challenging circumstances. There is no doubt that, as always, they will perform superbly. If we made a commitment to NATO to provide the operational reserve force for the Balkans, we have an obligation to the alliance that we must fulfil, but the problem with this mission goes beyond the obvious question of overstretch and touches on questions of Government planning.
	As a country, we are more than fulfilling our obligations to the NATO alliance in Afghanistan, as one of my hon. Friends said in an intervention. Last year, once 10 December 2007 was established as the day that international mediators would submit their findings on the future of Kosovo to the United Nations Secretary-General, it became no secret that Kosovo would most likely declare independence sometime during the first quarter of 2008. Considering our high operational tempo in Iraq and Afghanistan and when our forces were so overstretched, why did the Government continue to make that commitment to the ORF during that time period in Kosovo? Did the Government try to persuade other countries to take on that responsibility at a time when the UK's armed forces were doing so much elsewhere? I hope that the Minister will deal with that point directly.
	Bearing in mind the Secretary of State's response to another question, we will keep a close eye on this issue and table parliamentary questions on any potential impact that operations in Kosovo will have on the airbridge to Afghanistan and Iraq. The concern is not without justification. New figures show how regularly our troops are delayed returning from Iraq or Afghanistan. Given that they have to report to the flight line many hours before a flight, it is a huge issue when 11 per cent. of all flights from Afghanistan are delayed by more than six hours, leaving our troops often on the floor or losing days of leave. That can have a significant impact on morale, as anyone who has spoken to our forces there will attest. It is simply not good enough.

Liam Fox: When I recently visited the Falklands, there was an active interest in that, although whether those in the Falklands regard it as our oil or their oil is an interesting question. Perhaps we could address it with the legislative council of the Falklands islands.
	The EU has an important role to play in the energy picture, especially in countering some of the difficulties posed by Russia. An end needs to be brought to the divide and rule that the Kremlin operates through single-nation sweetheart deals. The European Commission must act to remove protectionism and national monopolies, creating a genuine free market in energy.
	Better interconnections will reduce the risk of supplies being cut off for those who displease the Kremlin, but the EU will not be a sufficiently strong vehicle. NATO, as was decided as Riga, must play a key role in ensuring energy security for the west. Any decision on energy security that excludes Norway and Turkey, neither of which are in the EU, would be flawed. In order to face 21st-century threats, it has been argued that NATO's article 5 could be expanded to include energy security. We shall certainly have to consider that in the months and years ahead.

Liam Fox: Of course we are not considering that that should be in any way a unique UK capability. My question is whether new types of threats are emerging, whether NATO is looking collectively at how to deal with the problem and whether we should raise the issues further up the agenda for public discussion. When one sits in the Canadian Parliament or talks to Canadian Ministers—or to the Danes or Norwegians—it is striking that they have a different view of how global warming might affect economic and strategic issues in the future.
	NATO can play a key role in securing transport routes. Operation Active Endeavour, which has been patrolling the Mediterranean since 2001, is a good example of NATO co-operation on maritime security. Giving NATO a greater role in energy security would provide Turkey with added prestige and allow reformers a breathing space given the short-sighted attitude taken to its EU membership by some of the EU's more prominent members.

Liam Fox: All members of NATO have to decide what to put first: their national interests and historical grievances or the collective alliance. I heard my hon. Friend's point, but I was in fact referring to Germany and France.
	Let me turn finally to Afghanistan and NATO. The recent Bucharest summit was disappointing on many fronts. For example, nothing was done to source the operational reserve force for the international security assistance force in Afghanistan. That requirement of NATO's combined joint statement of requirements for Afghanistan has been unfilled since Romania last provided it in December 2006. It is inconceivable that 26 NATO members cannot find an extra battalion between them to provide an over-the-horizon reserve force for ISAF in Afghanistan. It illustrates a rather sad state of affairs.
	It was reported in  The New York Times last Saturday that the Pentagon is thinking about deploying 7,000 more troops to Afghanistan on top of the 3,200 Marines recently deployed to the south, because our NATO allies are not willing to provide the troops that the commanders on the ground need. That might or might not be correct—it was newspaper speculation—but the fact that it is being considered could lead to a dangerous shift in America's perception of NATO.
	We have more troops in Afghanistan now than at any other time. We are the second largest contributor of troops to ISAF after the US and sadly 95 of our brave servicemen and women did not make it back home to their families. That is a testament to the dedication and commitment of the British armed forces to bring stability and prosperity to the people of Afghanistan. Of course, it is about much more than that. As important as reconstruction and democratic development are, our forces are in Afghanistan primarily for our national security and to deny the forces determined to destroy our way of life a base from which to operate. It is for our security that those people have made their sacrifices, and we should perhaps be more explicit in saying so.
	Our troops fought bravely this winter, retaking Musa Qala and restoring order. We have about 6,000 troops based in Helmand province, which is geographically twice the size of Wales. Some 700 of those troops—a large portion—are tied up in Musa Qala, left behind to maintain the security. When the Minister winds up the debate, will he report on the progress of the reconstruction effort in Musa Qala? When does he expect that the Afghan security forces will be able to take over some or all of the security responsibilities there in order to free up British forces to further pursue the Taliban in other parts of Helmand province?
	The difficulties and shortages in Afghanistan are not limited to boots on the ground. We are still facing a shortage of tactical airlift in the form of helicopters. The Prime Minister, during his time as Chancellor, cut the helicopter budget by £1.4 billion in 2004 when we were already involved in two conflicts. In December, as the Secretary of State reminded us, the Prime Minister announced that NATO will start contracting civilian helicopters to reduce the burden on the military aircraft operating in Afghanistan. Although that move has sometimes been presented to us as some sort of panacea for the tactical airlift shortage in Afghanistan, the civilian contracted helicopters do not solve the main problem of freeing up helicopters for coalition use for combat operations.
	I appreciate and respect the civilians who are placing their lives at risk by supporting British and coalition troops on the front lines in Afghanistan, but as with all announcements from this Government we have to examine the small print. Under the terms of the contract, only 13,000 kg can be airlifted a day, in comparison with a CH-47 Chinook helicopter that can carry up to 23,000 kg on one trip. To put it simply, we are getting two thirds of one sortie from one Chinook helicopter a day with the NATO civilian contract. We now know that the contract is for an airlift service provided by a mix of helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft, but fixed-wing aircraft have different capabilities. They require secure runways for take-off and landing and many of the forward operating bases in southern Afghanistan lack such facilities.
	In addition, the terms of the contract do not allow troops to be carried in the civilian contracted aircraft. Helicopter airlift, in a country such as Afghanistan, is vital for conducting counter-insurgency operations. The problem is that if our troops need to be medivac'd or a quick reaction force needs to be sent behind enemy lines, not only are those civilian helicopters prohibited from conducting such missions, they are failing to free up enough of our own helicopters to reduce the burden effectively.
	We need to do more, but we should never have found ourselves in a situation where we need to ask our troops to operate without all the necessary equipment. If we have failed to provide our forces with everything that they need, we have not failed as a nation to fulfil our obligations as a NATO member, which is more than we can say for a number of our European NATO allies. Many of the additional European troops who were offered at Bucharest, as well as many of the European troops who are already operating in Afghanistan, are restricted by phone books-worth of caveats, and that comes at a time when defence is high on the EU agenda.
	The EU has talked about a foreign and security policy, but it simply will not spend the money. Most countries in Europe spend well below the 2 per cent. of gross domestic product on defence that is supposedly the floor level. In Afghanistan, some of the major EU players are most clearly failing in their duties towards the NATO commitments. Understanding the potential of soft power is important, but soft power on its own is not enough. If we will the ends, we must will the means. Diplomacy without military support has little credibility. In a dangerous world, we cannot simply count on talking away any threat that we face.
	We remain a global military power, and power brings responsibility. Frameworks, institutions and agreements are all very well, but security does not come for free. Many EU politicians like to say that the role of the EU is in peacekeeping and nation building, but we can keep the peace only if we have the peace. If we want freedom, we must be willing to defend it, to fight for it, if necessary to die for it and, definitely, to fund it. In Afghanistan, we need a commitment to fight to the last, but unfortunately, at present in the south of Afghanistan, that would be the last Briton, the last American and the last Canadian— [ Interruption ] —and a few notable others. That cannot be sustained in the long run. There must be better burden sharing in the south of Afghanistan, because the load in fighting cannot fall on as few nations as it does at present in an alliance that wants to have a sustainable long-term future.
	When Secretary Gates talks about the emergence of a two-tier NATO, it is a warning about the survivability of the alliance. For EU politicians then to talk about a European pillar of NATO compounds the problem. With European security and defence policy, we see no extra funds on top of those set aside for NATO responsibilities; rather we see the double-hatting of forces that are clearly masquerading as new capacity. We see duplication and possibly competing military structures on top of an already underfunded commitment to the primary defence alliance. That is a potentially toxic mix for NATO in the long run.

Liam Fox: It is clear that the Netherlands and Denmark have been operating honourably in the south of the country, but they are primarily supporting the forces of the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. Most people would recognise that we provide the vast bulk of the fighting troops in the south of Afghanistan. The majority of people in this country well understand that, while we are giving a commitment, along with those major allies, to fighting in the south of the country, too many other NATO partners are unwilling to see their forces engaged in the south. That is not a good thing for the long-term health of alliance. If we have collective security, we must collectively accept the areas of high risk. It is not acceptable for everyone on the street to have the same insurance policy, while only some of them pay the insurance premium.
	All the areas that I have outlined come at a time of increased tension and danger. We face the threats of nuclear proliferation, with Iran testing the patience of the international community. We face a resurgent and self-confident Russia, and we face the deadly threat of Islamist extremism, with forces opposed to our system of government, our beliefs and our values. They oppose us not for what we do, but for who we are. We cannot avoid the confrontation, for they have chosen to confront us.
	Today we are remembering the end of the second world war in Europe 63 years ago and the sacrifices made then for our security. We showed resolve not only then but again in the cold war against the communist threat. We need to face our present challenges with the same courage and determination that previous generations showed, and we as a nation cannot be found wanting.

Lindsay Hoyle: It is important that we are talking about defence in the world, and I should like to start by paying a tribute to Royal Marine Jonathan Holland, who made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan and who is buried in a Chorley churchyard. That brings home what our troops are doing out in Iraq and Afghanistan. One cannot forget all those people—generally they are young people—who have made the ultimate sacrifice and, of course, those who have been injured and severely injured. We talk about the commitment of our armed forces, and without doubt we are second to none in the world in the commitment that we ask of, and receive from, our armed forces. They never say no; they always say yes. We must respect that.
	This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Territorial Army, and it plays a role in back-filling our forces. Whether in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq, the TA footprint is there and we must not forget that in its centenary year. I say to the Government that the TA has played an excellent role in the past. It continues to play that role and it must be allowed to continue to play it in the future. We cannot manage and play our role in the defence of the world without the TA. It is only right that we look to increase its budget and not cut it. It does so much at so little cost that we should not ask it take cuts at this time.
	The Navy, the Royal Marines, the British Army and the Royal Air Force have all been deployed and play their role. We expect them to continue to do that.
	Lancashire is famous for recruitment and its regiments. The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment is a new regiment that is made of three great regiments: the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, the King's Own Royal Border Regiment and the King's Regiment. We should not forget the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, and one person in particular. Colonel Mendonca almost became a scapegoat for the higher ranks in the military and we should not forget what a brave man he was. I am sorry that the Army lost such a young leader. It was tragic that he was forced out, but we must not forget what he did for us and we must not forget his regiment, which is now part of the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment. I pay tribute to Colonel Mendonca.
	I have already referred to the role of the TA, and Chorley's own TA squadron has just been part of 52 Brigade under the command of 5 General Support Medical Regiment. Colonel Roger McBroom took 5GS to Afghanistan, and what a role it played in providing medical services and returning people to this country. It is only right that we also talk about the hospital at Selly Oak and the role that it plays.
	Medical services have been based at Preston, and men returning from Afghanistan receive their medicals at Fulwood barracks, as will the men from the Chorley TA squadron. When the squadron went out to Afghanistan, it was commanded by Major Nick Medway, and we must pay tribute to him for becoming a lieutenant colonel. The TA and the regulars worked well together and it is important that we recognise their important role.
	A reception was held on the Terrace only a week ago for 52 Brigade and others who had returned from Afghanistan, and I thank the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) for organising it. It was good to see that our soldiers were being given recognition in the House.
	Recognising the role of our soldiers means that they should be able to march through our towns. We want the people of this country to recognise what our soldiers have done, so it is important that they have the right to exercise the freedom of the town and can march with banners and standards flying and drums beating.

Lindsay Hoyle: My understanding is that we are investing a lot of money in trying to get those aircraft into service, and we can all agree that the sooner that happens, the better. That might remove some of the embarrassment from the Opposition.
	We must also consider uniforms and their quality. This Government made a tragic mistake with the cut-and-sew contract, which was given to a company in Northern Ireland that was never going to produce the uniforms. The work was sent to China, done in a sweatshop and sent back for our troops. That is totally unacceptable.  [ Interruption. ] One of my hon. Friends says from a sedentary position, "We have heard this before". He may have, but he may not be aware that the cut-and-sew contract is coming up for renewal. I hope that we are brave enough to allow an open tender, rather than making a cosy arrangement in an office somewhere in the Ministry of Defence that allows China to keep that contract. I hope that we will open up this process and allow British companies to tender for the contract, and put the jobs back in Lancashire. So there is a challenge there for my friends here. I look forward to the Pincroft bleaching and dyeing company winning that contract once again.
	It is a question of commitments. There is none better than the Type 45 destroyer. HMS Daring has been doing its tests; it is an absolute leader in its class and we can be proud of it. We are heavily investing in that class of destroyer, and long may it continue; we thank it for what it has done. We have the destroyers, and we must look forward to the two aircraft carriers, which are crucial in defence terms. We look forward to an announcement on them sooner, rather than later, and to a commitment regarding what will be operating off that platform. We talk all the time about and hear a lot about the joint strike fighter. I hope that that contract is there, that the intellectual transfer will take place and that we can get the benefit of those jobs in the north-west. I hope, too, that we will not just be providing parts but doing the final assembly, and that we can maintain those aircraft on those two valuable carriers.

Nick Harvey: It is important that we should see it, as should the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman chairs. I look forward to seeing it myself. Spring has always been quite an elastic term in governmental circles, but it is getting almost as stretched as the armed forces themselves. I hope that all the papers will be at the disposal of the Select Committee for its consideration.

Nick Harvey: Yes, it might indeed be climate change.
	Both recruitment and retention remain essential to our efforts to sustain adequate numbers of boots on the ground, but intake has fallen and outflow has increased. Commonwealth nationals are increasingly being relied upon to fill the gap where British forces are leaving. It is clear that there must be further efforts and incentives to put that right. It is notable that many of our allies are succeeding in increasing their troop numbers while the British are struggling to stand their current ground. Iraq and Afghanistan have been costly ventures financially, and although about £10 billion has come out of the urgent operational requirements the Ministry clearly faces a budgetary crisis. It is fair to argue that the marginal costs of those operations are met by urgent operational requirements, but it is not true, as Government spokesmen try to imply, that the total costs are met through the UORs because they are not.
	The strain, in human terms and in terms of the life expectancy of some of our equipment, is not to be underestimated. It cannot be denied that a financial situation that was already bad is being made considerably worse. The Government are keen to point out that we have one of the largest defence budgets, pro rata, in the world, but that it is not the whole picture. We know that defence inflation vastly outstrips general inflation and although the Government can quite fairly point to the fact that there are real terms increases over the next three years, as measured according to the retail prices index, that does not necessarily translate into real terms in the defence sector. The Government face financial difficulty across the board, and no more money will be available during the period that we are considering. Again, that underlines the need to ask some fundamental questions about how to balance our commitments with the resources.

Nick Harvey: The Minister makes an interesting suggestion. I do not have such an inflator at my fingertips, but if he believes that such a thing could be considered, it would be good for the House to debate it.
	The Ministry of Defence is in financial crisis—that is widely understood and commented on. It serves to underline the mismatch between what we are trying to achieve and the available resources. I have already come under fire for my party's belief that our operations in Iraq should be brought gradually to an end. That cannot be done overnight, but getting one of the major deployments in which we are involved off the balance sheet will help. We do not have the right balance between the configuration of our troops and the procurement decisions to back up those troops. I believe that the solution is another fundamental strategic defence review.
	If the country, under any political scenario that we can envisage, will not have more resources to commit to defence than we currently have, we must make decisions that get us back into balance. It is not my imagination, that of the Tories or that of the media that the armed forces are overstretched or that the Ministry of Defence is in financial crisis. Anybody who is alert to what is going on can see that both assertions are true. There is therefore a need for a fundamental review and some tough decisions.
	The Minister asked whether there was some other inflator. Defence expenditure was 2.4 per cent. of GDP in the last financial year. It has been on a steady downward trend from a high in 1984-85, when the figure was 5.2 per cent. Real terms increases can be expressed in simple cash terms but, as a proportion of GDP, and in terms of the spending power of the money in the defence budget, expenditure has clearly decreased.
	We are waiting for some big procurement decisions. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) had an incredible shopping list of items that he awaits with great optimism. If he had written such a list to Santa as a child, he would have been horribly disappointed. However, we are waiting for some crucial decisions. I do not envy Ministers the agonies that they have undergone in recent months when considering what to do, but we fear that more and more projects will be pushed to one side and that there will be salami chopping to make the finances balance. That is not a strategic or sensible way in which to run our nation's defence.

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. If he believes that our forces are too configured towards continental defence, is he suggesting that we retreat from that posture, increase our expeditionary forces and reconfigure for more of such operations? If so, what criteria would he use for that increased deployment?

David Kidney: I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's oft-made point that there is good recruitment in the north-west, and I wish him well in promoting a super-garrison there. If he does not mind, however, I would like to move on to the fruitful recruitment in the west midlands, and talk about the prospects for a super-garrison in that region. There is fruitful recruitment to all our armed forces in the west midlands, and we in Stafford are interested to know whether there will be a west midlands super-garrison—and if so, whether the military base at Stafford will have a role in accommodating further personnel.
	On 19 April Stafford held a superb double celebration, as we granted the freedom of the borough to Tactical Supply Wing and 22 Signal Regiment. From the church service to the parade and the ceremony in the market square, the whole event was magnificent. I was particularly pleased that the evening TV news reporting of those special events focused on the public support for our military; people lined the town's streets in their hundreds to cheer and applaud the RAF and the Army. All of us present enjoyed the military marching and the bands playing.
	The granting of the freedom of the borough to Tactical Supply Wing recognises the 37 years that it has been part of the community of Stafford, continuing a Royal Air Force presence in the town that started before the second world war. Tactical Supply Wing was formed in 1970 at Stafford as a result of changes in the United Kingdom's defence posture. The unit became fully operational in 1971, and almost immediately deployed on operations to Northern Ireland. There has not been a day since when members of Tactical Supply Wing have not been deployed on operations somewhere in the world; deployment has often been in support of two or three operations simultaneously, as is the case today.
	The unit's role of providing aviation fuel support to the British military's helicopters is unique and requires its members to be trained to a high proficiency in order to carry out their roles anywhere in the world, in any climatic conditions, often at short notice. In its 37-year history, the unit has served in all the major conflicts in which the British military has deployed, including the Falklands war, both Gulf wars, Belize, Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Sierra Leone and, latterly, Afghanistan. The unit has also supported humanitarian operations as far afield as Nepal and Mozambique.
	Members of Tactical Supply Wing consider Stafford to be the spiritual home of their unit, and many serving and former members of the unit have made Stafford their home. At the freedom ceremony, the commanding officer, Wing Commander Nick Atkinson, said:
	"Stafford has always provided the friendly homecoming for many Tactical Supply Wing personnel returning from operations overseas. With the base forming part of the town, this has enabled Tactical Supply Wing personnel and their families to integrate, and become part of the local community."
	Lieutenant-Colonel Neil Fraser arrived at Stafford two years ago to head up a small team charged with reforming the 22nd Signal Regiment, which had disbanded in 1992 in Germany, just after the first Gulf war. The RAF ensign had just been lowered from the base, then called RAF Stafford, and the Army flag was raised on 1 April 2006. We were all in a period of much uncertainty; station facilities were closing, more than 600 uniformed RAF personnel had moved to RAF Wittering, and it had not been formally announced that the new regiment would form.
	From the moment the Army arrived, it was made to feel welcome by the whole town. As funding was found in late 2006 and early 2007, the bulk of building work was completed, and soldiers, families, vehicles and equipment moved into the renamed MOD Stafford; most came from Bulford, near Salisbury, and Colerne, near Bath, but people also came from across Germany and the rest of the UK, including Northern Ireland.
	In July 2007, the new 22 Signal Regiment had its official formation day. The Commander-in-Chief, Land and the Master of Signals welcomed the regiment back into the Army's order of battle. Even as it was being formed, the regiment had soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers are now settling into the newly-named Beacon barracks, deploying on exercises, and a squadron has even been in London on public duties.
	Creating a new regiment is a huge task. Creating this regiment in Stafford, where the base is in close proximity to the town, has allowed soldiers and families to be part of the community, At the freedom ceremony, Lieutenant-Colonel Fraser said:
	"Only six months after I arrived we had babies born in local hospitals, kids at schools and dependants finding employment—we were very much embraced from the start!! We have supported where we can Remembrance Day events, High Court Openings and the various formal and charitable occasions that make Stafford a vibrant civic community. People all over the Royal Signals seem to want to serve here—and I suspect a large part of it is the location that those of us here enjoy."
	The sizeable Gurkha community, consisting of 160 soldiers and some 60 families, is well settled in Stafford too. Stafford college offers free English tuition to the soldiers and their families, which is yet another indication of the local community's support for the military. Several people from the regiment have already bought homes in the area, and the foundations are in place for stability.
	It must be a remarkable achievement for the regiment, just over a year after its reformation on 1 April 2007, to be honoured with the freedom of the borough on 19 April 2008. It is certainly a famous landmark that can be added to the regiment's history, which stretches back into its days as an air formations signals unit that landed on D-day. Then our country's leaders were discussing putting forces into Germany: today, we are discussing bringing them out of Germany.
	Altogether, the relocation of 4 Armoured Brigade, HQ ARRC, 1 Signals Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade will account for approximately 30 per cent. of British forces currently located in Germany. When the redeployment of troops back to the UK and the possible relocation of HQ ARRC were first announced in 2006, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Drayson, reiterated:
	"We will continue to make further modest adjustments to our force levels in Germany, but our plan remains to base UK forces in the country, in the form of 1 Armoured Division and its supporting units, for many years to come. These moves and the work of the project team in no way signal a change in either our commitment to the NATO alliance or our overall defence policy, nor do they in any way devalue the continued close bilateral relationship between the UK and Germany."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2006; Vol. 684, c. 130WS.]
	Aside from the UK's commitment to the NATO alliance, and Germany in particular, the basing of British troops on German soil in the longer term also continues to be regarded as important from a training perspective. During questions in the other place on 16 February 2006, Baroness Crawley confirmed that
	"we have made a commitment to stay in Germany with sizeable numbers of troops for the foreseeable future. We see Germany as a terrific training asset. We always see our need for a capability for heavy armoured divisions, and the training for those takes place in Germany, eastern Europe and Canada."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 February 2006; Vol. 678, c. 1254-5.]
	In January this year, Baroness Taylor reiterated that
	"units continue to be based in Germany as the UK is committed to its contribution to NATO and co-operation with its allies in the alliance. The UK also benefits from the opportunity to train armoured units in Germany, and to make use of training areas in Eastern Europe, which are less accessible from the UK. With the approval of the German Government, we plan to continue to station two armoured brigades and their supporting units in Germany for the foreseeable future."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 14 January 2008; Vol. 697, c. 235WA.]
	It is expected that the size of the British contingent in Germany in future years will total some 15,000 service personnel.
	In conclusion, we have not exactly reached the end of an era, but in future we can anticipate fewer of our forces being based in Germany. Our presence there will continue, but the mass, shape and role of our forces in Germany will change. The training and the support will be more broadly based, both across the European continent and throughout the NATO alliance.
	On the day of the freedom ceremony in Stafford in April, we were all reminded in church of the military covenant and the obligation on all of us in civilian life to value and support our armed forces because of the dangerous work that they do in our name, and the personal sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, that they make for us. I know that the Government plan to publish a Command Paper shortly to bring together all the additional ways in which all of us, in Parliament and in our communities, can keep our side of that covenant. I look forward to that publication soon.

James Arbuthnot: We look forward to hearing the answers to these important questions, which relate to the relationship between Ministers and the armed forces whom they lead.
	The Defence Committee visited Iraq last summer, and we hope to do so again this summer, subject to the points that have already been made about our medical fitness. Every time we go to Iraq we are immensely impressed by the men and women of our armed forces whom we meet. They are absolutely outstanding and so are their achievements.
	Obviously, questions remain about the coalition mission in Iraq. The US surge seems to have been successful in many respects in controlling the levels of violence. The Iraqi security forces seem to be growing in capacity, although they still need support. In that context, I believe that the recent operation in Basra, led by the Iraqis with the support of the British and the Americans, was not a bad thing but a good thing. It was the Iraqis taking control of their own destiny. Let us never forget that that is what we want them to do. The more they can do that, the less necessary the presence of our troops will be.
	Moving on to Afghanistan, as we reduce our troop levels in Iraq, however slowly we are able to do that, we have increased our commitment to Operation Herrick. We now have about 7,800 service personnel in Afghanistan—more than any other country apart from the United States. On the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Hamilton) has drawn attention to the real risk that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are conflated in the public's mind. They are very different operations; they arise from different circumstances. We must make the case for each of them separately. An unpopular incursion into Iraq, although it has achieved some real successes, looks likely to drag down in the mind of the public the much more difficult incursion into Afghanistan.
	The events of 9/11 are fading gradually into people's memories as history. The horrors and fears that 9/11 raised are diminishing with time, although in reality the dangers of al-Qaeda and international terrorism remain absolutely huge. Of course, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are reminded of the important point that when we invade a country, we need to be sure what we will do with it when we have been successful, and we need to provide the resources to secure the peace as well as the war. That is what we in the west have failed to do.
	The Defence Committee visited Afghanistan in April last year. We hope to return to Afghanistan later this year. In the report that we published in the middle of last year, we concluded that reconstruction efforts required a strengthening of the comprehensive approach. There is no one answer to the issues; there is no silver bullet for Afghanistan. We said, among other things, that more work was needed to support the training of the police and the judiciary, and that much more work was needed on the winning of hearts and minds in Afghanistan and, indeed, at home. We were, of course, concerned that the burden of fighting and of the resources going into Afghanistan was falling disproportionately on a handful of NATO countries, but I have already paid tribute to the Netherlands and Canada for the outstanding nature of their contribution. Other countries are also contributing a great deal.
	I have said that Afghanistan presents a much larger task than Iraq. NATO is trying to create a democratic Government in a country that has no real history of one, and which seems to exhibit little desire for one. The raw material of Afghanistan—resources, education and infrastructure—and the availability of weapons practically everywhere, make the task hugely challenging. That challenge is not yet matched by the political will and the resources in the developed world to get the whole country on to a viable road; until it is, we will not succeed.
	The future of NATO and ISAF are closely linked. Some NATO members are simply not pulling their weight in Afghanistan; others are bearing greater burdens than are reasonable. We welcome President Sarkozy's announcement of additional French troops to be sent to Afghanistan. I would welcome even more French troops being sent there. Problems remain—there are national caveats and problems of force generation—but that is symptomatic of the broader soul searching that is needed in NATO as a whole.
	We as a Committee published a report on the future of NATO earlier this year. We thought that it was an important contribution to the debate, and some of our conclusions moved in these directions. We said that the strategic concept of NATO needed to be renewed. Next year is the 60th anniversary of NATO. It needs a new focus. It needs a new clarity of purpose. It needs new political will, above all. That was what we identified as the major shortcoming of NATO at the moment. The point is not just that many NATO countries have fallen considerably below the target of 2 per cent. of GDP, but that the populations of the NATO countries seem to have forgotten what NATO is for. They concentrate much more on the European Union than on NATO, while still being less and less prepared to pay for the defence in which they are clamouring to have a greater say. It is a very odd business.
	The Committee placed great importance on the outcome of the Bucharest summit; it was a vital summit for the future of the defence of the western world. I was extremely disappointed that we did not have an oral statement on the outcome of the summit even from the Secretary of State for Defence, let alone the Prime Minister. That meant that we did not have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister on NATO at a crucial stage. For example, what is the response to Russia when it begins serious talks with separatists in Georgia? What is the response to the shooting down of an unmanned aerial vehicle owned and flown by Georgia? Those two things were a direct response to what came out of NATO. We needed an oral statement.
	NATO is the linchpin of our security. We must make sure that it adapts to the challenges of today. If we do not, the United States will lose interest in NATO, and if the US loses interest in NATO, NATO will be dead. The future of the mission in Afghanistan is very important to the future of NATO and to its whole credibility, the upholding of which forms part of the most important duty of Government—the defence of our country.
	I must not take up too much time, so I conclude by saying that we must not let our natural focus on Iraq and Afghanistan obscure the many other commitments of our armed forces. We still have substantial forces in Cyprus, although they are often part of the reserve that rapidly goes backwards and forwards to Iraq or Afghanistan, and we have just deployed 600 additional troops to Kosovo. It is essential for the UK to train for, and to be prepared for, the events that we are not facing now but may face in future. However, we are not doing that, because there is nothing left in the locker. We have been told that by the Chief of the General Staff.
	We must lift our eyes, we must lift our ambitions, we must lift our pride and we must lift the priority that we place on the defence of our country and on the wonderful men and women who undertake that task on our behalf. That requires leadership and commitment from the very top.

Quentin Davies: In the brief time for which I will speak, I want to take up four points that were raised by the Secretary of State, a couple of points that were raised by the Opposition and perhaps make one point of my own.
	First and most important, on the issue that we are most concerned about, the Secretary of State was reasonably encouraging—responsibly and moderately so—on the two great deployments that we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was absolutely right in the phrase that he used. They are the front line of our security. I have not the slightest doubt—I have said it in the House before—that had the terrorists who attacked London and Glasgow last summer had the benefit of a six-month training course in bomb-making and detonation techniques in a safe haven for terrorists in a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan, they would have succeeded in killing hundreds and perhaps thousands of our people. That is the fundamental reason for our deployment there and for the brave British servicemen and women fighting there doing such a vital job. The risks to their health and lives—and it is tragic if those risks result in death or serious injury—are risks that have to be borne. We must be deeply grateful to those who are prepared to take on that enormous responsibility on behalf of the rest of our country.
	It is clear from the history of any counter-insurgency operation that 70 to 80 per cent. of the outcome is down to psychology. That is why it would be fatal to go down the road set out by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). I know from personal experience that he has considerable knowledge and interest in these matters and takes a responsible line on defence issues, but he is trapped in a party that has a terrible record of mixing short-term party politics with the defence of the nation. The greatest possible threat to our making a permanent positive contribution to providing stability in Afghanistan and Iraq, to defending ourselves from terrorism, and to ensuring that we have the best possible chance of leaving those countries with reasonably stable and democratic Governments for the long term—the best way of undermining any such chance of that scenario—would be to do what the Liberal Democrats urge on the Government, which is to make public statements on exit strategies or set public deadlines for pulling out of either of those operations.

Quentin Davies: It was clear at the time that the Prime Minister believed that the situation in Iraq was such that it enabled us, and made it sensible for us, to reduce the number of troops from between 4,000 and 5,000 to 2,500. One can readily understand how in certain circumstances that would be a reasonable thing to do. Obviously, it would be desirable if it were possible to do that without jeopardising the success of the operation. Matters have become more complicated since then, however. It has become important to support the Americans during their surge and the al-Maliki Administration in Baghdad in trying to gain control of the country. It is very much a matter of psychology. The events in Baghdad and Basra over the past few months have shown how difficult things are. The Iraqi forces initially ran into quite a lot of trouble and bother. It was sensible to decide that this was not the moment to reduce further our forces in Iraq.
	I listen with great interest to the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, and often learn a lot from him, but I did not follow what he said today, which was to the effect that we could either have a viable critical mass in Iraq of 4,000 to 5,000 troops or have 500 or fewer. Things do not work like that. It may be possible to go down to a lower level of troops provided that there is a commensurate reduction in the threat. Clearly, if there is no threat, we do not need any force protection. Presumably, those are the circumstances in which he envisaged having a small training programme, or something, involving a few hundred of our troops. I would have thought that if there were a threat to them, they would need their own force protection, which would require a number of troops being available substantially in advance of that. It may well be that the Prime Minister felt last autumn that we were moving towards that situation. Clearly, we are not, but that does not mean to say that over the long term we will not succeed in making a considerable success of the operation. Perhaps in five or 10 years' time, if we can withdraw from an Iraq that is reasonably stable—if it is, for the first time in its history, a democratic country—we will be able to look back with pride on having kept our nerve despite the obvious and understandable public pressures to throw in the sponge and pull out prematurely.
	The second thing on which I want to congratulate the Government is quite remarkable: the number of initiatives that they have taken in the past year or two to provide material support for our troops. There has been an announcement in short order of two armed forces pay reviews, which have been accepted by the Government. I think that the results of those public sector pay reviews are the only ones to have been accepted. The one last year increased the pay of people in the lower ranks by 9 per cent. That is real money, frankly.
	At the same time, we have had the introduction of the tax-free deployment allowance and concessions on council tax, and rightly so, but they are without precedent. Commitments have been given to spend more money on improving housing, and it is very important that that be done. I will not make a party political point by saying who is actually to blame for the present administration and ownership of military housing in this country. Instructions have been given to health authorities to do what they really should have been doing automatically since 1948 and the introduction of the health service—to give priority to patients presenting with symptoms as a result of service in our armed forces.
	I have left out several things, such as the significant increase in the compensation limit. There has been an enormous number of initiatives in this field. It is a remarkable record of achievement, and as far as I can see the Government have got absolutely no credit for it whatever. I suppose that it is not surprising that they were given no credit from the Opposition Benches—party politics comes into issues even as important as this—but the media have not picked up at all on these points. However, there is no doubt that the armed forces are aware of the continuing effort.
	Thirdly, the Government have also made tremendous progress in addressing the issue of the equipment of our forces deployed on these difficult operations. There is no doubt that, as often happens when one suddenly has to send an expeditionary force to an entirely new combat zone thousands of miles away, there are bound to be deficiencies. I suppose that there has never been a case in history of a country deploying such an expeditionary force far from home and at short notice, and there not being severe deficiencies in the personal and other forms of fighting equipment, and people not having what they ideally would have liked in those difficult circumstances. However, that issue has now been addressed, and very creditably so. The urgent operational requirements system is really working, and we are getting equipment out to Afghanistan and Iraq within a few months of the requirement being identified by the military on the spot.
	In the past few months, I have had the opportunity to speak to more than 300 serving men and women in this country, many of whom had just recently returned from deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq. The universal view of everyone whom I asked about personal equipment—I ask that question on every occasion, as you can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because this is a live issue often debated in the House—was that the equipment now available to them in Iraq and Afghanistan is absolutely second to none, including to that of their American counterparts. They were very conscious of that point. That is another considerable achievement on the part of the Government.
	Unfortunately, because of the delays in coroners' inquests, coroners' judgments are still being made about the unfortunate deaths of our servicemen and women from three years ago. The Government have taken steps to spread out the inquests across the country, so those delays will now decline. References to the inadequacies of personal equipment are at least three years out of date. The tabloids pick up on that and present it as a current story—as a reflection of current reality—when in fact, that position ceased to exist some years ago. That is completely unjust and unfair, and needs to be corrected.
	The fourth and final issue that I want to address and that was raised by the Secretary of State is the quite different one of anti-ballistic missile defence. I totally agreed with what he said: the Government are absolutely right to renew and update our co-operation with the Americans on this subject, giving them the benefit of the output at Menwith Hill and Fylingdales. The Government are also right to keep the matter under review. I do not want to draw any conclusions as to what we should be doing over the next few years in this area, but it is a very serious problem.
	The fact is that the Iranians are investing in ballistic technology to an extraordinary degree. They have developed the Shahab 2 missile and are now developing the Shahab 3, with which they can potentially already achieve a range of more than 1,000 km. One has to ask why they are doing that. If we believe last December's American defence community report—it said that the Iranians abandoned their nuclear weapons programme in 2003, which would be very good news indeed—we have to ask what other kind of payload the Shahab 3s are designed to carry. Presumably, it is biological or chemical weapons—weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Ahmadinejad may be a lunatic but even he cannot be quite so mad as to spend this vast amount of money in developing ballistic missiles simply in order to carry high explosive. The cost-impact ratio would be utterly ridiculous by any standards. There is a real threat and problem there.
	The Secretary of State is right that, for the foreseeable future, we need not think about locating terrestrial land-based anti-ballistic missile systems in this country. But I am reassured that the Americans are in agreement with the Polish and Czech Governments on locating systems there. We should keep the matter under constant review and come back to it from time to time in the House. I appreciate that the Secretary of State took the initiative in raising the subject this afternoon. No one asked him to do so or raised it with him and I hope that the Government will continue to keep us informed. There will be consensus among reasonable people in this House on taking whatever responsible measures may be required in the light of the threat over the next few years. I put it no more strongly than that.
	The official Opposition—the Conservative Opposition, whom I used to support officially; not always with great conviction in recent years—made me feel this afternoon that I was glad that I was not on those Benches. I thought how embarrassed I would have felt if I had been. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) implied strongly that he thought that it was a priority for us to get into the business of building icebreakers.

Robert Key: It is so simple but clearly beyond the hon. Gentleman's understanding. For those who did not hear my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) the first time, he said that NATO did not have adequate capability if we were looking at new scenarios in the north. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to deride my hon. Friend. He did not deride him or my party when he served with me as a defence spokesman for our party.

Quentin Davies: When the hon. Gentleman and I served as defence spokesmen in the Conservative party we certainly did not get on to icebreakers or Arctic warfare as a serious challenge. That was in the last decade and I am not sure that the geopolitical situation has changed that much. I interpreted the comments quite differently. In referring to NATO not investing in icebreakers, it sounded to me that the hon. Member for Woodspring felt that we, as a part of NATO, should be helping to make up that deficit. He said that the Canadians were investing; the implication was that we should be as well.
	I am glad that we have had this matter exposed and I hope that the Conservative party now realises how utterly ridiculous, risible and foolish it would appear if it suggested that scarce military resources be spent on building icebreakers. The very best interpretation that can be put on the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that they were totally irrelevant and that he was wasting the House's time by raising an issue that even he did not think was relevant to the defence needs of the nation.

Quentin Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.
	The judgment of the hon. Member for Woodspring needs to be reflected on, most urgently by the hon. Gentleman himself but also by his colleagues on the Conservative Benches— [ Interruption. ] No, I have not quite finished on this subject. The Secretary of State revealed something else that I found absolutely extraordinary. I listened to it with amazement, but I know that I heard the words quite clearly, and I think that I understand the English language. It appears that the hon. Member for Woodspring has put on his website a proposal that NATO should buy up the poppy crop in Afghanistan. I cannot think of anything quite so ludicrously misconceived. To do that would enormously increase the demand for the poppies and create an enormous increase in production. It would also greatly increase the dependence of farmers and peasants in Afghanistan on poppy production and divert them away from diversification into the other crops that we are trying to encourage them to grow.
	That is an extraordinarily ill thought-through set of policies. I raise this matter not because I wish to justify my leaving the Conservative party—I do not need to do that; I am very happy with my decision—but because I believe that the public need to be warned. The opinion polls show that the Tories are in the lead. That means that, if there were a general election tomorrow—I do not suppose there will be—and if the polls were reasonably accurate, we would have a Conservative Government and a Secretary of State for Defence with an obsession with icebreakers who wanted to buy up the poppy crop in Afghanistan. The public really need to reflect on these matters, and I do not apologise for raising them. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here now, but it is not my fault if he chooses not to sit through the debate, or if he chooses to make his speech and then simply walk out.
	There is one final matter that I want to raise. As the House probably knows, the Prime Minister asked me just before Christmas to lead a study into national recognition of the armed forces, which meant examining the extent to which the public understand, appreciate, identify with and support the armed forces. That study has now been completed and submitted to the Prime Minister, and I hope that it will be published very soon. Obviously I do not wish to anticipate the recommendations that it will make, but I want to make one point in that regard.
	Our conclusions were twofold. First, it will not surprise the House to learn that there is enormous public support and gratitude for the armed forces in our country, and that it is deeply and widely felt. That comes out quite clearly in the homecoming parades and in the success of the charity appeals that have been held over the past few months. There has also been evidence of that support in our debate this afternoon. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) talked about the relationship between the general community in Stafford and the military personnel based in the barracks there. That is an interesting example of a medium-sized town in which a very good relationship of that kind can exist.
	There is a widespread sense that members of the armed forces are very special. Most human beings would not be capable of spending six months of their lives in a desert without even the occasional drink, with none of the pleasures of family or social life, under constant threat of being seriously wounded or killed, sometimes living on ration packs—not, as is sometimes stupidly said in the tabloids, for months on end; that certainly does not happen, but it happens during the course of individual operations—and leading an austere and dangerous existence. The people who are prepared to do all that are extraordinary human beings. As I have said, they play an indispensable role, and civilisation would not last very long if there were no men and women prepared to do it. There have been one or two nasty incidents that appear to illustrate a certain hostility towards the armed forces, but they are the work of a very small twisted minority of people.
	Our other conclusion was that, over the years, there has been an increasing separation between the armed forces and the rest of society, although not because anyone wanted that to happen. That separation is a reflection of two things. First, as each year goes by there are fewer people with experience of serving in uniform, or who have a close family member who has served in the armed forces. A generation or so ago, the second world war generation was still largely alive and every male—at least in principle—had done national service. Conscription ended in the early 1960s, but until then almost every family had a member with experience of the military. People understood about the constraints, disciplines and dangers—as well as the camaraderie, pressure and tension—that accompany military operations. Such things were better understood in society as a whole then.
	Secondly, a cultural change has taken place. I do not want to go outside the ambit of the debate, but it is generally agreed that, over the past 20 years, society has become increasingly hedonistic, short-termist and individualistic. Some might say that it has become more atomised, but I want my remarks to be a statement of fact rather than a long social critique. The fact is that the military must be based—they cannot be otherwise—on a more traditional ethos involving concepts such as public service, team effort, self-sacrifice, devotion to duty and discipline. The social and psychological divergence that has taken place is not healthy for the country as a whole or for the armed forces, because it means that people increasingly lack the familiarity, contact and knowledge on which positive feelings of gratitude and support for the military can be based. Therefore, our recommendations will be directed above all to finding ways to narrow the gap that I have identified.
	Other countries have achieved that. The evidence from America is clear: 30 years ago, after the Vietnam war, the relations between the general public and the military were very bad. To anyone who knows America now, that is extraordinary, given the American public's support for, and identification with, the military. The relationship can only be described as symbiotic. It is immensely impressive and very moving, and of course we cannot move that far in one leap. Our traditions and psychology are very different—no doubt people will say that Americans are more effusive by nature than we British are—but nevertheless there are some interesting lessons to be drawn from other countries. For example, Canada and France are other democracies that regularly deploy troops in combat situations.
	If our military are to do their job, it is very important that people support, understand and have contact with them. They need to feel that the pressures and sacrifices that they face are fully appreciated by the general public.

Tobias Ellwood: Without detracting from the fantastic work done at Selly Oak and Headley Court, which I recently visited, does the hon. Gentleman agree that more should be done in respect of the mental health of soldiers who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq? I was astonished to learn from a parliamentary answer that 15 members of the armed forces had committed suicide while still in uniform after returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. I do not know the figures relating to those who hung up their uniforms after returning, but I suspect that it is at least double. I believe that we should do far more to look after the mental, as well as the physical, welfare of our soldiers.

Kevan Jones: The report deals with that issue. We recognised what the Government had done to help with combat stress and I pushed hard to ensure that we could monitor people throughout their lives. It is no good letting people leave the armed forces and be forgotten by the system. One recommendation—there seems to be some reluctance to take it up—was to have a patient passport. That would allow people to be monitored throughout their lives—not just their physical health, but, more importantly, their mental health. I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.

Kevan Jones: As the hon. Gentleman says, when we took evidence in the Scottish Parliament we were shocked by the arrogance and how ill-informed the contributions were. I hoped that our report, which is quite critical of that, would go some way to put it right. If it has not, I am concerned, and the Committee might want to return to the matter.
	Anyone who goes to Selly Oak must be impressed not only by the level of care but by the commitment and dedication of staff. However, we were critical of the media's reporting of Selly Oak—I was not surprised that that did not receive much media coverage. I raised with the director and the armed forces personnel there every single story in the press I could find about lurid topics such as soldiers being abused by Asian patients, and not one of them could be substantiated. In our report, we said:
	"It seems clear that there has been much inaccurate and irresponsible reporting surrounding care for injured Service personnel at Birmingham, and that some stories were printed without being verified or, in some cases, after the Trust had said that they were untrue."
	The Committee roundly condemned that, and we said that editors should be responsible about what is reported. Anyone who is looking at Selly Oak should go there and talk to the people and listen to some of the stories, because world-class medical care is being provided. I urge Members of all parties not to repeat some of these stories, because they are completely untrue and do a lot to undermine the credibility of the great work that is being done.
	I was also impressed with the medical services that are now embedded in the NHS. I know that the decision to close stand-alone military hospitals has been controversial. The decision was taken by the previous Conservative Government, and it was right, because a high level of clinical expertise is now embedded in some units and the clinicians acquire experience that they could not get in stand-alone military hospitals. We therefore think that that was the right decision, and we also support the continued closure of Haslar—although I know that the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) is not very happy about that.
	Overall, what we found was a good news story, although the Committee must keep things under review. I must also echo a comment: were things all right three or four years ago? I am not sure that they were; I think we have improved, and that the pressure that has been applied has helped.
	Another issue is being kicked around like a political football about which we must try to get some perspective: compensation for armed forces personnel injured or killed abroad. If we had a bottomless pit of money, we would open it up for these people, but there is not a bottomless pit of money in politics—that also applies for future Governments of any political persuasion. However, this Government have made some major moves forward, and they have been unfairly criticised for what they have tried to do. I served on the Bill Committee that dealt with the armed forces compensation scheme, which for the first time ever brought in lump sum payments for people who are injured—sometimes horrifically, as we have seen in some examples in Afghanistan and Iraq. That was a major move forward. Before that, there were no lump sum payments. From the media frenzy around this, it might be thought that this Government have done nothing at all, but we have: we have given the lump sum payments plus the lifetime pension. People can score political points if they want, but the previous Conservative Government did nothing on this, and we should be proud of what we have done. It is, however, right to keep the issue under review, and the example of Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson showed that the scheme needs tweaking. The Government are looking at that.
	I urge people not to jump on bandwagons. I have great respect for the Royal British Legion, but having sat on the relevant Committee I am aware of the implication that other Members argued for more lump sum payments. Nothing was said at the time, and people should give the Government credit when they do the right thing.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to participate in the debate. My first question is whether "Defence in the World" is an appropriate title for such debates. As we have heard in all the contributions today, we must consider not simply what the military are doing in the corners of the globe, but exactly how their operations fit into the peacekeeping, nation building and growth of the communities involved. That is well beyond the remit of any military, and I therefore suggest that these debates be widened to include the work of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, so that we fully understand how the MOD operates in connection with those other organisations. For example, in Iraq, security remains bad, but is it the military's fault that not enough schools are built, that there are not enough hospitals and that we have not established the local and regional government structures that should have been put in place in the very early months when there was an element of peace?
	Today, five years after the invasion, Basra teeters on the brink of civil war and Anbar province—the biggest province—has been ethnically cleansed. In the social context, unemployment is rife, electricity is intermittent and petrol for transport remains sparse. Some 25 per cent. of Iraqis totally depend on food rations, according to the UN, and only 3,000 of the 15,000 schools destroyed or damaged have been repaired. According to UNICEF, up to 75 per cent. of children are not attending schools. Iraq's Ministry of Water says that only 32 per cent. of the population have access to drinking water and only 19 per cent. have access to good sewerage systems.
	Hon. Members might ask what that has to do with defence in the world. The point is that we are still in Iraq, and because these issues have not been solved, we continue to stay in Iraq. My argument is that other aspects of Cabinet Departments are not doing enough to support our military to ensure that once the umbrella of security is created, our military can leave, leaving behind a strong sense of governance and the building blocks for a nation to continue on its own.
	In my view, we cannot call what we see in Iraq a success story. It has been a costly failure in peacekeeping—a textbook example of how not to nation-build—resulting in a prolonged, testing and ultimately unwinnable task for our armed forces, which, after providing a small window of peace, are now hopelessly and totally abandoned by the FCO, and, indeed, by DFID. There was no plan, no strategy and no idea how to harness the euphoria of the fall of Saddam Hussein and to sow the seeds of governance.
	I do not wish to take away from the individual work and strengths of DFID and Foreign Office representatives, but those two Departments have totally failed the MOD and the military who are still stuck on Operation Telic many years after those other organisations have disappeared. DFID is no longer to be seen in any sense or form in Basra on the scale that should have been there when we first went in. We have moved from being liberators to being occupiers. I am afraid that our military have borne the brunt of that, and they get very little thanks for what they have managed to achieve.
	It could be argued that perhaps if Saddam Hussein had invaded somewhere, or done something proactive, we would have had to expedite a force to go out and rush in there. However, as memoirs are written and the information comes out of the system, we see that General Franks, who led the initial invasion, was approached, as the commander of US Central Command, back in November 2001 to start to create the plans of attack to invade Iraq. There was plenty of time to formulate a plan for what we would do after the invasion was complete. In May 2003, President Bush stood on top of the Abraham Lincoln, saying, "Mission accomplished." We have failed in Iraq because we did not use that important window of opportunity. Rather than our being able to take advantage of the confusion, the power vacuum has been filled not by us, and not by good Iraqi governance, but by al-Qaeda, which was not there in the first place. That is what has led us to be seen not as liberators but as occupiers. We have lost the hearts of minds of the good people—the Iraqis—who wanted us to move forward.
	To confuse matters, we now talk about the militants in Basra. The situation is more complicated than that. The Fadhila party and the Mahdi army are two different operations. The Fadhila party has responsibility and the mayorship of Basra, but the Mahdi army wants that power. The conflict between the two militias is causing the friction, and the only thing that united all the militias in Basra was a hatred of the British. That forced us to move from Basra palace to the airport itself. I am saddened by how we were forced to withdraw. My battalion—the 4th Battalion, The Rifles—was part of that, and it did a fantastic job in trying to patrol in very difficult circumstances. However, we must ask whether it is correct for 750 soldiers to patrol a city of 1.5 million people if those soldiers do not have the support of DFID and the FCO.
	The problems manifested themselves in the uprising on 9 April. The Secretary of State said today that the grip of the militias had now been broken, but I beg to differ. As we heard from other interventions at the time, it is clear that the Iraqis could have contained the situation only with the support of the Americans. Indeed,  Time magazine has reported this week that US and British planes had to be called in and that medical supplies and even bottles of water were needed to support the Iraqis. According to the Iraqi Government, many soldiers refused to fight. Many surrendered and many switched sides; 1,300 soldiers deserted. That is why UK and American special forces were needed to try to quell the uprising. The situation is not under control; it is very much teetering on the brink of civil war. We have walked away from the issue and it is less in the headlines than it has ever been before. However, there will be a period of uncertainty before there is any long-term peace in the south and in the Shi'ite sector.
	The scenario for the Sunnis in central Iraq is a different one. As I said, ethnic cleansing has taken place in Anbar province, and although there is relative peace there, that is because of the awakening project in which the Americans paid militias and gave them uniforms so that they could patrol their areas. That might have purchased a temporary peace, but what will happen when the Americans depart and that money dries up? On a visit to Iraq recently, the Iraqi Government made it clear that they would not continue to pay the militias for what they were doing. The militias are outside the structure of governance and there is a worry that they will turn their sights on the south and the Shi'ites. We will then have full-scale war. I hope that that will not happen, but it is certainly on the cards. The prospect of things heading that way is very worrying.
	I am saddened that we seem to be running away from Iraq with our tail between our legs after we had such an opportunity in the relative peace to do something positive. Unfortunately, we face a similar situation in Afghanistan. Again, a lack of co-ordination within the international community means that money and effort are not getting to the front line. The centralised model of governance means that we do not recognise or celebrate the mixture of tribes, alliances and allegiances that actually make up Afghanistan. The Americanised constitution that was imposed on Afghanistan ignores the Loya Jirgas that set up their own democratic structures, and we rushed into creating an elected system of governance that is limited to Kabul only. We need to look at recognising better the Pashtuns, the Tajiks, the Hazaras and the Uzbeks, and the differences that exist across the nation, and to take a much more federalist approach than the centralist model, which is clearly not working.
	Time is against me, and I must conclude. Kinetic activity is not the only thing that the Ministry of Defence needs to be concerned about. It is part of the fight to contain insurgency, but a wave of support must come in behind it. There must be reconstruction and redevelopment. If there is not, all we do is end up killing the bad guys; the good guys wait around for something to happen, and when it does not, they ask, "What have we actually witnessed?" That is the big difference between following through our commitment and leaving it to the military to create a peace of which no one ever takes advantage.
	It is clear that the Kabul Government are weak and that we are not harnessing the exports because there is not the infrastructure to do so. The international community needs to do more to get the road and railway systems working so that things can be exported. Afghanistan was one of the world leaders in exporting fruit, which was its main export before the Soviet invasion. Not only is the country now unable to grow fruit in any great measure because the irrigation system was not repaired properly after its destruction by the Soviets, but there is no method of getting it outside the country and linking up with world export markets. We have been there for a number of years, and even today no one is working on those things under the limited and fragile umbrella of security put together by the military.
	Fighting asymmetric battles is not just about shooting the bad guys, but about helping, and being seen to help, the good guys. ISAF, in its limited role, needs to expand what it does. I heard General Richards speak at an event last night. He was shocked to hear how much Royal Engineers were doing to repair our own barracks again and again, in and around the various Afghan towns and cities, rather than their being sent to do work outside where the civilian contractors refuse to go.
	We have the ability in NATO to do more for the reconstruction effort. We have a question mark over NATO's future. More can be done to expand the peacekeeping mission to include not just fighting, but a proactive approach to peacekeeping itself. Iraq and Afghanistan are our generation's war. My worry is that the lack of a plan in both cases means that we will be fighting it for much longer.

Bernard Jenkin: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) on his remarks about the lack of co-ordination between DFID and the armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is one of the abiding problems that NATO as a whole and even our own Government have failed adequately to address.
	In a wider context, it has become something of a cliché to say that following the tearing down of the Berlin wall, we now live in an age of uncertainty. Increasingly, however, the Government are becoming lost in a fog of their own making about how to engage in the new world disorder. The central policy of this tired Government has become to abdicate their responsibilities, seeking to subcontract their foreign and defence policy to international institutions. While they waste their political capital on such an unrealistic policy, there is almost complete paralysis in the Ministry of Defence. It is so stretched by the demands that are placed on it by the Government's foreign commitments, it is now living virtually from month to month. The three-year spending round is clearly insufficient to pay for current procurement programmes or to match the stated manning requirement, but the Government seem determined to avoid the consequences of that. There was a meeting in the Ministry of Defence last week to try to resolve the spending difficulties, but substantial decisions still come there none. The Government will do all they can to avoid facing up to the key point that they have not adequately funded the armed forces. While Ministers keep their heads in the sand, the serious point is that the UK is in danger of relegating itself to a third division status among the world powers.
	The current Government's attitude to foreign affairs appears to involve a further retreat into a reliance on international institutions, such as the UN, the EU, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Here, so the Prime Minister told us recently, can our influence be most effective, reforming those institutions to make them more powerful and more effective for the 21st century. The Prime Minister's foreign policy speech in Boston identified many of the further challenges, but the world's problems will not be solved by committee meetings in New York or Brussels; they will only be solved on the streets of Baghdad, Kabul and other cities in Asia, Africa and the middle east.
	The Prime Minister says that
	"global problems require global solutions; the greatest of global challenges demands of us the boldest of global reforms".
	However, such truisms do not seem to grasp the fact that the only real actors in global events are not the international institutions but the nations they represent. Hence, China will not compromise on industrialisation in the face of western fears about climate change; Iran will not give up her desire to obtain nuclear weapons, or stop interfering in the security of her neighbour, Iraq; Russia will not stop pursuing the aggressive, bullying nationalism that has characterised the Putin presidency, such as the threatening of energy supplies to its neighbours. Those very same countries render impotent the international institutions upon which the Prime Minister keeps vesting so much of his political capital.
	The west is not immune, either. The Government should reflect on the fact that the United States will not recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court because, somewhat justifiably, it wishes to protect its soldiers against malicious legal actions. France will be France; Germany will be Germany. The idea that major international actors such as the US, China and Russia are altruistically going to give up national interest to pursue a so-called global agenda is little more than a cod-Marxist fantasy. If the Prime Minister is to make a real impact on the world stage, he must deal with the world as it now is and not how he wishes it to be, and be prepared to assert our own role on the world stage.

Bernard Jenkin: Of course we have common interests on which we should work together, but we cannot allow other nations effectively to veto our own foreign policy by exercising their veto in the international institutions. As the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, proved time and again, in the end it may only be the bilateral and multilateral ad hoc options that are available to us. Insisting that the only way to validate one's foreign policy is to have it stamped by the EU or the United Nations is to tie one's hands to national agendas that are different from ours—to the agendas of countries that have no intention of allowing us to veto those agendas.
	So we see the UK disappearing into the background on the world stage. The Prime Minister's absence from the Lisbon treaty signing was met with anger on the part of foreign politicians, diplomats and journalists. How can the Prime Minister expect to have any influence if he absents himself? One official said that
	"he has no position in Europe, he occupies no ground".
	At last month's NATO summit, the Prime Minister was similarly invisible. Where was Britain's voice when the issue of Georgian and Ukrainian membership was being discussed? We heard strong arguments on both sides from America, France and Germany, but virtually nothing from the United Kingdom. By the time the vital meeting with the Russians took place—on the final day of the summit—the Prime Minister had fled the scene. The last to arrive at Lisbon, the first to leave Bucharest: is that the way to promote the UK on the world stage?
	To compound that, the Prime Minister failed to come to the House to give an oral statement on the outcome of the NATO summit—a quite extraordinary precedent given the importance of the summit for Afghanistan, for the enlargement of NATO, for missile defence, for relations with Russia and for the unresolved issue of EU-NATO relations. The Defence Secretary told the House last week that everything was going well in Afghanistan, but a report drawn up by the Foreign Office at the Prime Minister's request and distributed to our NATO allies warns that
	"Critical military gaps remain to be filled."
	That is not the story we are told on the Floor of the House; it is the sort of candour we could do with.
	The Prime Minister's effort to dissociate himself from Mr. Blair means that he has adopted a one foot in, one foot out approach to our deployment in Iraq. Again, this is the worst of all possible worlds. While the Americans surged into Iraq last year—despite all the obstacles and difficulties, they have made a lot of progress—the British Government were looking to get out of Iraq. Even that has failed. In the wake of his pre-election stunt to try to overshadow the Conservative conference, the Prime Minister told the House in October that he was planning to reduce the size of Operation Telic from 5,500 last September to just 2,500 by now. That simply defied the military logic, as explained by the Minister for the Armed Forces to the Select Committee in July. He said that
	"in an actual overwatch situation we cannot go much below 5,000 because we have to sustain the force and self-protect the force itself."
	So it has proved. Operation Telic is now stuck at around 4,000 for the foreseeable future. The Prime Minister has made himself look foolish and devious in the eyes of our servicemen, the British public and our allies. He raised the hopes of our servicemen—who thought they were going to be home soon—and their families, and then dashed them.
	Southern Iraq is supposed to be a British responsibility and yet it is the Americans who have had to divert troops from central Iraq to fight in the south. I wonder what it feels like to be stationed at Basra airport watching the Americans do our fighting for us because the British Government have lost the political will and run out of the military capacity. A Labour Member said earlier that overstretch was just a myth promulgated by the Conservatives; he should listen to some of his hon. Friends, who will tell him the truth about how little military capacity we now have. The fact that we are now deploying to the Balkans the 2nd Battalion, The Rifles so soon after their return from Iraq underlines how overstretched we are.
	The Government's bungling in Iraq has seriously undermined our credibility with the Americans as well. The Government's failure to commit the necessary resources or show the stomach for the fight has caused a sense of private and sometimes public betrayal among the American military and politicians. Of course General Petraeus is going to say something diplomatic when he appears before the press in London, but the disillusion goes up to the most senior levels. Senator McCain has said of the British withdrawal from southern Iraq that he
	"did not think it was a good idea."
	That is about as blunt as the special relationship gets in public from a US presidential candidate—the one I hope will win. While we are still talking about scaling back our forces in Basra, the US army has sent a brigade to the city. Is that what we mean by standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies—indeed, our most important ally?
	The underlying problem is that the Government have failed to underline the reality of their foreign policy with their defence policy. Since 1999, the Government have pursued an interventionist foreign policy without providing the armed forces with the necessary resources. We do not need to rehearse all the figures again. The strategic defence review promised, but did not deliver.
	The Government point out that they are increasing defence spending, but after the additional spending they have pledged specifically for accommodation, salary increases, council tax rebate, the carriers and Trident's successor, the increase over the course of the comprehensive spending review is just 0.6 per cent., not 1.5 per cent per year as published by the Government. The picture is worse when one factors in defence costs inflation, which was raised earlier in the debate. The spending increases are tiny in comparison with those that the Government have found so easily for other public services such as health, education and overseas aid.
	The numbers in the armed forces are falling: there are 1,000 fewer soldiers this year than last. Major projects have been delayed and there are endless stories of budgetary chaos at the MOD. The Government have become ashamed to come to the House of Commons to discuss military matters, hence the written rather than oral statements on NATO and our deployment to Kosovo.
	The MOD has found itself a prisoner of the Prime Minister's indecision. It cannot cut one of the big programmes because of the cost in headlines and job losses, but it is not being given the money to pay the bills either. General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue told the Select Committee that he suspected that cuts would have to be made
	"but which they are and what they will be I do not know. We are in the middle of a planning round."
	That was months ago, yet there is no sign of any decisions having been made. When asked how the scale of difficulty in this planning round compared with others, he said:
	"I think it is a greater challenge this year than it was in 2007".
	When asked whether he remembered the situation ever being as much of a challenge as it is today, he replied:
	"Yes. When I was an MA back in the late 1970s we had some pretty challenging times".
	Of course, a Labour Government were in charge in the late 1970s.
	Mr. David Gould, the chief operating officer, said:
	"The Chairman specifically asked whether this was as serious as we had ever known it at least in recent years. To that I would say yes, although my memory goes back to the 1970s as well and I can think of times when maybe it was worse. That is not an atmosphere in which it is easy to take big decisions on commitments."
	It was because of that atmosphere that the Committee felt it necessary to conclude in its report that the Ministry of Defence
	"needs to take the difficult decisions which will lead to a realistic and affordable equipment programme".
	We see no sign at the moment of those decisions being made.
	The national security strategy says that
	"we are entering a phase of overall reduced commitments, recuperation of our people, and regrowth and reinvestment in capabilities and training as much as equipment."
	I put it to the House that that is clearly fantasy. Since that statement was published, our numbers in Afghanistan have risen and are likely to remain high for the foreseeable future, the draw-down from Iraq has been cancelled, and we have now made the deployment of 2nd Battalion, The Rifles to Kosovo. This is not a phase of reduced commitments, and nor is it likely to become one. The Government are totally detached from reality if they think that we are about to enter such a phase in the short, medium or long term.
	The MOD's development, concept and doctrine centre at Shrivenham has made it clear that global instability is likely to get worse, not better, over the next generation. It forecasts a relative decline in US power, continued weapons proliferation, pressures caused by big demographic changes and population growth, more famine, the effects of climate change, and increasing competition for limited resources such as fresh water, food and energy. Much of that will be concentrated in the most unstable parts of the world. Who is going to deal with these problems if we are stepping back from our role on the world stage?
	Future Governments will have to decide what they want the armed forces to be capable of. Will a reformed United Nations step in to fulfil the role? Dream on! And there is certainly no sign of other European nations doing so. Only on Monday, the former German ambassador to the United Kingdom told the  Financial Times:
	"Most EU governments will not be capable or willing to raise their defence budgets substantially".
	If not Europe, then who? India, perhaps? Or do we want to see China or Russia doing more? I do not think so. The fact is that there are only three major democracies in this world that are prepared to project military power on the world stage. We are one of them, and if we abdicate our role, we will become yet more dependent on the United States, while having less influence over what it does.
	The debates that we have in this House on Britain's defence in the world are likely to become less and less relevant to what is happening in the world, unless we in the House are prepared to commit the resources that our armed forces need to do the job that they do so heroically on our behalf.

Willie Rennie: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have six minutes in which to complete my remarks. I am pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate. Defence in the world is one of those topics that could cover anything, and I regard it as including Rosyth, which is in my constituency and which I hope will be the base for the final construction of the aircraft carriers. However, the title of the debate clearly does not include the Scottish National party as, yet again, none of its members are present this afternoon. I do not make that point purely for party political reasons, but one of the important responsibilities that that party now has is for veterans in Scotland, and it has been found sadly lacking in that regard.
	I want to speak first about Iraq. The situation there has become, if not humiliating, then certainly embarrassing. The various U-turns over recent months have included the Prime Minister's change of mind about reducing troop numbers there to 2,500. In addition, 26 Mahdi army prisoners were released, only for them to take part in the uprising that took place a few months later. Finally, the Defence Secretary boasted about the training of Iraqi forces, but then had to rely on the Americans to prop us up over the course of that uprising. The Government's policy is in tatters, and our troops in Iraq deserve better.
	I hope that the Minister winding up the debate will tell us what is going to happen next. Will there be another great prediction of when our troops will be withdrawn? My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said that they should be withdrawn over a phased period, and I support that, but I want to hear what the Government have to say.
	I turn now to Afghanistan, where the poppy crop is an indicator of our success or failure. In itself, it is not the problem but a symptom: it flourishes when there is a lack of security. I am reminded of the film "Groundhog Day", as we have gone over the same arguments again and again about creating alternative livelihoods and putting in place the necessary security. I hope that the Minister will tell us what barriers prevent that from happening. I was a member of the Defence Committee, but it was never spelt out to me exactly what needs to be done to break the vicious cycle that has led to an increase in the size of the Helmand poppy crop.
	We have not heard much about Pakistan today, although that country has been a great concern over the past few months. What has the Minister to say about the relationship with Pakistan? Is it now playing an even more important role in making sure that extremists do not cross the border with Afghanistan as freely as they have in the past? Has the change of leadership in Pakistan led to greater co-operation with Afghanistan?
	Two important developments in disarmament are coming up. First, there are due to be talks on nuclear proliferation in 2010, and I hope that the Prime Minister will make them a top priority. He included them in the security statement that he made only a couple of months ago, but almost as an afterthought. I hope that the talks rise higher in the Government's list of priorities and that, instead of playing about with numbers, they make it clear that their aim is to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether. That would be a bold ambition, but it is one that needs to be delivered. The Prime Minister should take the lead in the talks, so that other countries realise that Britain regards getting rid of nuclear weapons as a top priority.
	The second development in disarmament is that a special conference on cluster munitions will be held at the end of this month, when many countries will come together to talk about possibly ending their use. I do not know whether the Government still hold on to the false differentiation between smart and dumb cluster bombs. I hope that we can get rid of all such differentiations, and realise that cluster bombs of all type should be banned.
	Finally, it would be remiss of me if I did not mention aircraft carriers, as people in Rosyth are very concerned that no decision has yet been taken about the main contracts. The Defence Secretary announced the final go-ahead before last summer's recess but I am not sure what the point was as, although some minor contracts have been awarded, there has been little progress since.

Julian Lewis: It is often alleged that this Government have no strategy and are hopeless, adrift and directionless, but there was a time when they did have a strategy, so that criticism is a little unfair. The strategy was very clear—order the carriers, leave Iraq, call a general election—but unfortunately it was sunk without trace by a well-aimed torpedo from my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is partly why the Government find themselves in the difficulties that they face.
	As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, today is the 63rd anniversary of Victory in Europe day. At that time, back in 1945, there were some similarities with and many considerable differences from the situation that we face today. Among the similarities was the fact that the country was pretty exhausted and pretty well drained of the resources that were needed to sustain strong military forces. However, one reason why the country was able to take comfort was the fact that it still just about had the remains of an imperial network of bases, so if its interests around the world were threatened it would be able to deploy forces from those bases. As it turned out, with decolonisation that situation did not last very long, but as it also turned out, the main threat that the United Kingdom faced for many years after the victory in 1945 was close at hand—the threat on the continent of Europe. From 1949 onwards, the focus was therefore very much on forces based nearby in friendly countries on the continent of Europe as part of the NATO alliance.
	What has happened since the end of the cold war was well encapsulated in the 1998 strategic defence review. Although there is a great deal of consensus that we need once again to review the balance between the commitments and the resources that our armed forces must respectively fulfil and have available, the situation that we faced at the time of the strategic defence review has not changed in one important respect—that if we are to apply military power around the world, and as we no longer have the network of imperial bases that we still had back in 1945, we must be able to project power on to the land from the sea. That was the basis of the concept of the strategic defence review being centred on the provision of two aircraft carriers. There need to be at least two because no ship, however powerful and well designed, can remain continuously at sea.
	I want, if I may, to press the Minister to give an answer as a follow-on to the admirably clear answer that he gave me on the question of when the orders might reasonably be expected to be placed. He said:
	"Construction of each ship will take an estimated five and a half years."—[ Official Report, 1 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 593W.]
	If that is so, and if the new in-service dates for the carriers—the date for the first one was originally supposed to be 2012; now it is 2014—are to be adhered to, and if we have to allow time for the sea trials, which will take at least a year and possibly longer, as in the case of the Type 45 destroyers, as well as time for working up before the ship really joins the fleet, then we are perilously near to the very last opportunity for ordering the carriers if those dates are not to slide off again.
	While we are on the subject of the Royal Navy, may I give the Minister an opportunity to put my mind at rest about something disturbing that I read in  The Sunday Times? It may be that the MOD has issued a response to it, but if so, I have not seen it. The article was written by Marie Woolf and headed, "Pirates can claim UK asylum". It said:
	"The Royal Navy, once the scourge of brigands on the high seas, has been told by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because doing so may breach their human rights. Warships patrolling pirate-infested waters, such as those off Somalia, have been warned that there is also a risk that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain. The Foreign Office has advised that pirates sent back to Somalia could have their human rights breached because, under Islamic law, they face beheading for murder or having a hand chopped off for theft."
	I tabled questions on that subject to the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, and in neither case has the reply explicitly made it clear whether that is the position or not. I would like reassurance that if the Royal Navy encounters any murderous brigands on the high seas, it will take the sort of action that the people of this country and seafarers worldwide are entitled to expect.
	Let me move on to some of the contributions made in the debate. The Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State focused on Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo, as we might expect, and on future threats. The Secretary of State was mainly concerned about ballistic missile defence and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was concerned about the possibility of a re-emergence of Russian offensive activities. We have to be somewhat chagrined to see the handover that took place in Russia recently; it is not quite what we had in mind when we thought that Russia was going down the democratic path.
	We need to be well aware of what threats might be, as well as present threats. That leads me to the remarks of the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), some of which I strongly agreed with. In particular, I thought that it was good of him to place it clearly on the record that, as far as Afghanistan is concerned, the Liberal Democrats—I use his words—"absolutely support" the long haul in that country. I was a little uncertain where he stood on the question of withdrawal from Iraq, because he seemed to be saying that we should do it as fast as can safely be considered. I am not sure whether he is referring to safety for the troops in the process of withdrawal, in which case we could get down to the task immediately, or safety for those who would be left behind, in which case there is little difference between him and the other parties in the House. We would all like to see the troops withdrawn, in the knowledge that the time has come when the people left behind—the Iraqis—will be safe.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that we do not face an imminent threat of state-on-state warfare. He referred to what he called the warfare of this generation, meaning the counter-insurgency campaigns in which we are currently engaged. I have only two minutes left, and I would like to say a little about that thesis, because it is not the first time that I have heard it. I have heard it increasingly from senior people in the Army, and they take the view that because the Army is fighting two significant counter-insurgency campaigns with inadequate resources, we will have to denude the armed forces of their long-term ability to fight in state-versus-state conflicts in order to win the wars in which we are currently engaged.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) put his finger on it when he said that it is a matter of the defence budget. He then said—he is able to say this with the freedom of the Back Benches—that he would like to see the defence budget doubled. I am sure that I would like to see it doubled, too, and I am sure of one other thing: if my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor intends to announce an increase in the defence budget that would be brought in by a Conservative Government, he will do it at an equally lethal moment to that of his last announcement about inheritance tax, and that will not be two years out from a general election.
	Our being two years away from power is no excuse for the Government, who are currently in power. There is one thing that they are not doing—adequately resourcing the commitments in which they are engaged. We have heard that time after time, from speaker after speaker, at least on the Opposition Benches. When we get into government, the Conservative party will either put full resources into commitments or not undertake them. It cannot be done both ways. The way the Government are doing it is by fighting current wars on a peacetime defence budget, and that is imperilling the long-term future of our armed forces.

Bob Ainsworth: I do not have much time to reply to the debate, and I am sure that I will not be able to answer all the questions that have been asked.
	Our armed forces are valued and respected throughout the world. They are widely recognised as being among the most capable, the best trained and, despite what is often alleged, the best equipped in the world. As today's debate showed, many hon. Members have a deep understanding and appreciation of our military. During the time that I have had the privilege of holding my position, there has been a growing understanding and appreciation among the wider public of the demanding and dangerous operations that the military carry out on behalf of the nation.
	In Basra, significant developments have taken place. The Iraqi operation in the city has made progress in dealing with the militias and improving security and the rule of law. At the centre of those operations is the Iraqi army 14th Division—the force with which we have been so involved recently. We can take pride in the fact that our assistance, support and training have helped to bring them to the level of capability that they have reached. We must concentrate on completing our training of the 14th Division and provide effective security for the economic regeneration of the port of Umm Qasr and Basra airport, both of which have huge potential.
	In Afghanistan, I was fortunate enough to make an overnight visit to our troops in Musa Qaleh in February, only seven weeks after the town had been taken from the Taliban. Two things were striking. First, it is not only generals and brigadiers who talk about the comprehensive approach; it is understood and practised down through the ranks. The evening operational briefing was not dominated by plans for military effect; it was a case of military people talking in detail about stability, security and development, which they delivered on a daily basis. That is why progress has occurred in places such as Sangin and Musa Qaleh. Secondly, those on the front line, living in the most austere conditions, displayed the highest morale. They are using their skills, training and equipment for hard soldiering and they take a genuine pride in what they do.
	We are involved in many other areas, including Sierra Leone, Kosovo, the Falkland Islands, Colombia and the Caribbean. We are a force for good wherever we are helping, whether with post-conflict stabilisation, conflict prevention, human rights training or drug interdiction. As the Secretary of State said in opening the debate, all that activity is aimed at shaping the international environment to protect our country, defend our interests and promote our values.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked me several questions specifically about Kosovo. He asked about the length of the liability. The request is for a month, as reported to the House. Nobody has tried to hide the fact that the time can be extended, and we have the responsibility until the end of July and the start of August to continue that provision. We are not volunteering for it, and we have shared it with other nations. The Germans recently fulfilled a commitment there and the Italians have done so in the past. It is a relatively short-term commitment—I hope only a month, but it can be extended till the start of August.
	However, I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman said—and I quote him—that if we have this commitment to NATO, we must honour it, but then said, effectively, that when we knew that the commitment was going to be called upon, we should surely have found ways and means of getting out of it. I am awfully glad that he is not an ally of mine and that I do not have to be in a trench alongside him, if that he is how he honours commitments of the sort he referred to, at least when he started his sentence.
	Equally astonishing was the hon. Gentleman's comment about southern Afghanistan. He said that if we had to fight to the last man, it would be to the last Briton, American and Canadian. The Danes, from a small country with a small commitment, have lost 14 people in Afghanistan and the Dutch are the lead nation in Oruzgan, along with the Canadians. The hon. Gentleman is the most extraordinary coalition-builder, going round making such comments. It is a good job that he does not work for the diplomatic service. However, we are making progress in both our main theatres of operation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) mentioned the Territorial Army. He spends an awful lot of time with the TA and I know that he is intimately involved with it. We have started the reserve review. It is not a finance-led review, but it will be difficult to square the need to provide deployable skills and get the most out of our reserves with the need to make an attractive offer to people who, at the end of the day, are volunteers. I know that my hon. Friend will understand fully the tensions involved in trying to strike that balance.
	My hon. Friend welcomed the £24 million that we recently invested in Headley Court. It is a world-class treatment centre already, but the infrastructure needs further development, so the investment is needed. He also asked about accommodation. The Department has invested significantly in accommodation in recent years. We plan to spend more than £8 billion in the next decade, of which more than £3 billion will go on improving and upgrading accommodation. Nearly 13,000 service family accommodation properties have been upgraded to the top standard of condition since 2001, with 600 more properties to be upgraded this financial year and 800 each year thereafter.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) raised, among other issues, both the fact that the Scottish Parliament has just assumed responsibility for veterans and the recent contribution that it has made. He should not be so churlish about that; indeed, we should welcome the contribution. There is a well known phrase, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned to me when he heard about the contribution, that is appropriate in this context: every little helps. We ought to welcome that contribution in that spirit.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) continued to raise his concerns about the establishment of the super garrison, the future of Beacon barracks and the other armed forces commitments in the Stafford area. We are committed to the establishment of super garrisons and convinced that the west midlands is a good location for one. If we can get there as soon as we can, we will do precisely that. I am certain that Stafford will play an important part in the development of any super garrison. I will remain closely involved with the Borona project and will try to keep my hon. Friend as engaged as I can.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) asked people not to play politics with the compensation scheme. The situation is not as simple as is deliberately and repeatedly made out. We make a commitment to our injured service personnel for life. The up-front payment is but a small part of that. My hon. Friend is right that it is wrong to portray the scheme in the way that the media often portray it.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will try to respond to any points that I have been unable to deal with in the short time available. On the carrier, which is important, if I have the time—
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion lapsed without Question put.

Virendra Sharma: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allocating me my first Adjournment debate in the Chamber. It is an honour and an excellent opportunity for me to raise this very important subject of Government support for organisations that support the victims of domestic violence. Tackling the problems associated with domestic violence is of great importance and interest to me and to my constituents who regularly speak to me at my constituency surgeries.
	I hope today not only to discuss the general problem of domestic violence against women, but to lay out the particular problems that women from black and minority ethnic communities face. I will also address how central and local government can support women suffering domestic violence and deal with the organisations in the voluntary sector that provide support services.
	Domestic violence still claims up to two lives a week, with around half of all female homicides being committed by a partner or ex-partner. About one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence. With those appalling statistics as a backdrop, we must all ensure that there is zero tolerance towards domestic violence and that we do all within our power to support individuals and organisations tackling this widespread and evil problem in our society.
	The causes of domestic violence are well known: male chauvinism, poor parental role models, outdated and controlling attitudes of weak men, often fuelled by alcohol and gambling problems and added to by financial pressures, and a lack of condemnation and punishment from society. Victims find it extremely difficult to get support to escape a violent situation for fear of retribution and fear of testifying against their partner in court to bring about a conviction.
	Fortunately, times are changing and I congratulate the Government and the Minister on the excellent work that is going on across government in tackling the causes, which is having a discernible impact on the problem. For example, the Government have introduced trained domestic violence prosecutors, specialist domestic violence courts and extra support for victims, which has resulted in the successful prosecution rate for domestic violence increasing from 46 per cent. in 2003 to 69 per cent. by December 2007. I endorse the Government's approach as recently laid out in the Government Equalities Office report, "Tackling Violence Against Women".
	The general challenges for women suffering from domestic violence are immense, but they are added to and intensified for black and minority ethnic women, who have to deal with a host of additional difficulties. Some of these are forced marriages, fear of honour killings and the social evils of the caste system, the dowry system, human trafficking, immigration practices and cultural pressures. For those coming from outside the UK, there is also the problem of language barriers and a lack of knowledge of the system. All these pressures can result in BME women being forced into exploitative cheap labour and, in extreme circumstances, prostitution. In my constituency, those women are the majority of sufferers and I hear tragic accounts almost daily.
	I applaud the Government for the initiatives they are taking to support these women, such as through the joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office Forced Marriage Unit, the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 that comes into effect in October this year and provides civil protection for people threatened with forced marriages, the establishment of the UK Human Trafficking Centre in Sheffield and the £2.4 million allocated over the next two years to the POPPY project, which provides safe accommodation and support for victims of trafficking escaping from prostitution. The Government's Ethnic Minorities Innovation Fund is helping to fund a number of accessibility-related services on the ground, including a holistic service for south Asian victims of violence against women.
	There is a lot of work to be done, but if the Government work in partnership with support organisations on the ground, a real difference can be made. We need to publicise, and raise awareness of, the help that women can receive and the support networks that exist.
	Organisations such as the Southall Black Sisters are working in the BME community and are reaching women who would otherwise be suffering on their own. They speak to women in their own language and with cultural sensitivity and awareness. They have real expertise and have worked closely with the Government to help draft the 2007 Act, and they are the real voice of many women who are suffering from all kinds of domestic violence.

Virendra Sharma: I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful comments and her support.
	Other secular Asian women's domestic violence services are threatened by the cohesion-faith agenda and by the wholesale redefinition of equality so that it is no longer about protecting the historically disenfranchised. Central Government need to produce robust guidance on cohesion policies and their implementation for local authorities, and should look to developing a central strategy on funding for key services, such as on domestic violence, that are not dependent on local authorities. I hope that the Minister will find a way to help that first-class organisation, which helps so many women in Southall, Ealing and beyond. I hope that Ministers will consider carefully the responses to the recent public consultation "Marriage Partners from Overseas", and I welcome the Government's intention to establish a new scheme under which victims of domestic violence with indefinite leave to remain in the UK may qualify for a contribution to their housing and living costs.
	More thinking also needs to be done to try to protect those women without leave to remain who often end up being exploited and driven into prostitution. A starting point would be speeding up the time that the Home Office takes to make decisions. I urge the Government to consider reducing fees for genuine domestic violence ILR applications.
	Another area that needs to be looked at is dowry and the exploitation of women and their families through the abuse of this system. In India, dowries are illegal but are still widely entered into and are still part of the culture amongst south Asians here in the UK. In 2005, the Indian Government passed the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In its definition of "domestic violence", the Act includes
	"harassment by way of unlawful dowry demands to the woman or her family."
	A similar clause in UK law is necessary if some of the abuses that are occurring in the UK today are to be tackled.
	I thank colleagues for their support and contributions to this debate and I now look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I am also grateful for the opportunity to raise these important issues in this debate.

Vera Baird: My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who have supported my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall, have both made the same point. I intend to set out my response to that point in exact accordance with what they both said.
	Let me touch on some of the other things that we are doing about domestic violence. It is important to contextualise the debate. We have a national domestic violence delivery plan, through which we intend to ensure that tackling domestic violence is mainstream in all public services. It is also an important plank on which we want to create a more stable set of conditions for the voluntary and community sectors to continue their role as our partners and our critical friends. That is a role that SBS already plays.
	We set ourselves five key goals, and key planks in the plan to assist with meeting those goals are: the ongoing expansion of specialist domestic violence courses, to which my right hon. and hon. Friends alluded; the introduction of independent domestic violence advisers who support complainants in bringing legal proceedings; and the introduction of multi-agency risk assessment conferences that protect people at high risk of serious harm or homicide from repeat domestic violence. Those measures are all underpinned by the Government's new public service agreements, which prioritise serious violence and include domestic violence for the first time ever.
	Let me give some examples of the funding that the Government have provided to domestic violence organisations and other services. The Ministry of Justice has funded independent domestic violence advisers to the tune of £3 million this year. We have provided £1.85 million in funding for multi-agency risk assessment conferences in the past year. We have committed £6.5 million to ensure that we can roll out both those essential components of our domestic violence plan nationwide.
	We are also funding Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse—CAADA—which is a training organisation. We need not merely to roll out the schemes nationwide but to ensure that there is appropriate and accredited training so that there is consistency in the quality of service across the country. We continue to fund a matrix of helplines: the 24-hour national domestic violence freephone helpline; the men's advice line for male victims; Broken Rainbow, a service for those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities; and the RESPECT phone line for perpetrators, which offers advice to those seeking help.
	While I am on the subject of funding, I want to mention that we have devolved funding for local domestic violence services, as well as for services in respect of all other crime, to local decision makers and partnerships. Funding for the local services provided by Southall Black Sisters must be determined locally. I cannot say a great deal more about that because, as everyone has mentioned, leave has been granted for Southall Black Sisters to take the local authority to judicial review, so we must not consider that matter further. However, in general, decisions on funding for services are based on local areas identifying a need and putting that into their priorities for improvement. The voluntary sector is, of course, key in providing specialised and focused services.
	Let me say this as clearly as I can: the gender equality duty, put into the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by the Equality Act 2006, plays an important role in getting public authorities to consider what forms of positive action they should take in tackling violence against women. However, it seems that the very misunderstanding to which my hon. Friends have alluded has arisen, and some people think that the duty somehow means that women-only specialist services, such as those that provide support for women victims of domestic violence, should no longer be provided. I am pleased to take this opportunity to make it clear that such an interpretation of the duty is wrong.

Vera Baird: I wonder whether I could finish this important point first. The code of practice makes it clear that the duty is not about providing the same service for men and women in all cases. It is up to each public authority to decide the priorities for its gender equality schemes, but such authorities can be proactive—the Government would encourage them to be—in tackling violence against women, if they wish, through specialist services.
	I do not know whether this is the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) was going to make, but let me add that similarly, there is no reason why the race equality duty should prevent authorities from catering for the special needs of racial groups in respect of domestic violence services, as in the case that we are discussing. If that is not what he was going to say, I give way to him.

Vera Baird: I have said what I have said. Let me put it this way: nothing from the Government says the council cannot do so. Yes, they can fund that organisation if they choose to do so.
	We need to do more to ensure that the victims of domestic violence from black and minority ethnic communities benefit from our interventions. We have made that a priority for this year. An example of our commitment is the development of a specific honour-based violence action plan to address the specific forms of domestic violence that affect some of our BME communities. We shall expand the work of the forced marriage unit to ensure that potential victims of forced marriage can speak out with the certainty that they will get the help that they need.
	More work is needed, however, with local community leaders to condemn the archaic and repugnant practices that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall has alluded to. We are also planning a series of regional and local seminars, starting in the summer, to publicise the work of the forced marriage unit and highlight the emerging strategies of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service in ensuring that the criminal justice system responds appropriately to protect victims and bring perpetrators to justice.
	A step-by-step guide for women in black and minority ethnic communities who are the victims of domestic violence will soon provide what we hope is practical advice on the steps that victims can take to protect themselves and their children. We hope that, in producing that guidance, we will have taken on board cultural issues, which can prove problematic.
	Another example that my hon. Friend referred to, and on which we have been working with both the statutory and the voluntary sector is to try to find ways of supporting victims with no recourse to public funds. People come in and are dependent on someone who undertakes to support them, but they are then tied to that person if domestic violence starts to become an issue. In March, we announced a new scheme for victims of domestic violence in exactly that situation whose applications for indefinite leave to remain are successful. I acknowledge that we need to speed up the process, and work is being done to do that for people applying for indefinite leave to remain. If their applications are successful, they may qualify for a contribution towards their housing and living costs.
	The proposals under the new scheme will strengthen the way in which domestic violence cases are considered, enabling vulnerable victims to obtain the support that they need. We have been working closely with the No Recourse to Public Funds Network to get a national picture of the issue and we will expand on the details of this programme of work later in the spring.
	I am proud to say that over the years, I have worked with Southall Black Sisters on a number of occasions, and I am pleased to say that the Government continue to work with the group and are pleased to receive its input. I am glad that we have been able to resource it in a limited way to ensure that its business practices can be made good. I hope that I have made it absolutely clear that nothing in the gender or the race policies—nor in anything else that one can readily think of in the Government's policy or legislation—can give any local authority any reason not to fund such specialist services if it chooses to do so.
	We have all come a long way in trying to tackle domestic violence, but there are many things left to do. We will not relax our efforts.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty -five minutes past Six o'clock.